VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00326
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00326
Petitioner: Kristin Maeckel
Filed: 2023-03-07
Decided: 2026-07-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-14
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 43000

AI-assisted case summary:
Kristin Maeckel filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on November 14, 2020. The parties were unable to resolve the matter informally and proceeded to an expedited hearing. The respondent initially opposed compensation, arguing that the petitioner failed to meet the onset requirement for a Table injury. However, the court found that the petitioner is entitled to compensation. The evidence indicated that Ms. Maeckel had no prior history of shoulder pain, and her pain began after the flu vaccine, consistent with the criteria for a Table SIRVA. She reported pain starting approximately two months after vaccination, which the court found to be within the 48-hour window for SIRVA onset, despite a delay in seeking treatment. The court awarded Ms. Maeckel $43,000.00 for pain and suffering, noting that her SIRVA was mild and treated over approximately one year with physical therapy, acupuncture, and a cortisone injection.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00326-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-08-28
Pages: 8
Docket text: =AF3636> Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/28/2026) regarding 39 DECISION of Special Master,, Ruling on Entitlement,, PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/28/2026) regarding 39 DECISION of Special Master,, Ruling on Entitlement, <font color
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00326-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-326V
KRISTIN MAECKEL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 28, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
0
On March 7, 2023, Kristin Maeckel filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
November 14, 2020. Petition at 1. The parties were unable to informally resolve this
matter, so they agreed instead to submit this dispute for resolution at an expedited
“Motions Day” hearing, which took place on May 29, 2026
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to
compensation. I also find that Petitioner is entitled to damages of $43,000.00 for
pain and suffering.
1 In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or
other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon
review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public
access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:23-vv-00326-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
On October 4, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation,
arguing that Petitioner had failed to meet the onset requirement for a Table injury.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (“Report”), ECF No. 31. Petitioner filed a Motion for a
Ruling on the Record and damages on April 13, 2025. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on
the Record Regarding Entitlement and Damages (“Mot.”), ECF No. 33. On May 12, 2025
Respondent filed a Response. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motoi for a Ruling
on the Record and Damages Brief (“Resp.”), ECF No. 34. Petitioner filed a reply on May
20, 2025. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to her Motion for Ruling on the
Record (“Reply”), ECF No. 35.
II. Relevant Factual History
On November 14, 2020, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder. Ex.
2 at 2. Throughout the month of December, Petitioner was traveling in Germany. Ex. 1 at
2. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain two months later, on February 17, 2021, to
orthopedist Dr. Ashok Reddy. Ex. 8 at 71.3 She stated that the pain began after the flu
2
vaccine. Petitioner was diagnosed with shoulder pain, bursitis, and a steroid injection was
administered. Id. at 73.
On May 26, 2021, Petitioner was seen for a follow-up regarding ongoing left
shoulder pain. Ex. 8 at 87-88. She stated she had no pain in her left shoulder “until
following flu shot at CVS in November 2020.” Id. at 88. An MRI showed tendinopathy,
effusion, and signs of bursitis. Id. at 77. Petitioner was seen again on June 10, 2021, for
continued shoulder pain Ex. 8 at 66-67. She repeated that she had no pain until the
November flu vaccine. Ex. 8 at 67. Additionally, she stated the February steroid injection
offered only minimal relief. Id.
Between June 18 and August 13, 2021, Petitioner attended nine physical therapy
sessions and four acupuncture appointments. Ex. 4 at 8-14; Ex. 3 at 10; Ex. 9. At the
initial acupuncture session the record states “shoulder pain left side. Nov 2020 flu shot.”
Ex. 4 at 14. Her pain was initially described as five out of ten, and by August of 2021 it
was reduced to three out of ten. Ex. 9 at 5, 27.
Petitioner was last seen for shoulder pain on December 6, 2021. Ex. 3 at 12. At
that time her arm was reportedly feeling better even without the use of over the counter
pain medication. Id.
3 On January 25, 2021, Petitioner saw her OB/GYN, which does not reference shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 11.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00326-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/28/26 Page 3 of 8
III. Legal Standards for SIRVA
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must preponderantly
prove the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act Section 11(c)(1). In addition to
requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and severity of
petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must establish
3
that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation is
presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). A
vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests
all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:23-vv-00326-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/28/26 Page 4 of 8
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion,
judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and
aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section
13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.
The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate
diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the
balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
Medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is
“consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42
Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the
individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
IV. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
Review of the entire record reveals that a preponderance of the evidence supports
the conclusion that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
A. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury that would
Explain her Symptoms
The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the
affected shoulder prior to vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent does not
dispute that Petitioner meets this criterion. I find that she has demonstrated a lack of
history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain her
symptoms.
4

Case 1:23-vv-00326-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/28/26 Page 5 of 8
B. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of her
Vaccination
The record preponderantly establishes onset of injury close-in-time to the
November 14, 2020 vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on February 17,
2021, stating that her left shoulder pain began after a flu vaccine. Ex. 8 at 71. Further,
she repeatedly and consistently linked her shoulder pain to this vaccination. See, e.g.,
Ex. 8 at 88 (record from May 26, 2021, noting Petitioner had no pain in her shoulder until
a flu vaccine received in November 2020); Ex. 4 at 14 (record from July 7, 2021 stating
“[s]houlder pain left side. Nov 2020 flu shot.”).
Respondent argues that Petitioner alleges immediate onset, but failed to report
shoulder pain on January 25, 2021 when she was seen by an OB/GYN specialist. Report
at 4. While Petitioner did delay in seeking treatment and Respondent is correct in that she
did not report pain at the first appointment, when the record is viewed in its entirety there
is ample evidence to find proper onset began near in time to the vaccination. Further,
Program petitioners are not required to marshal records setting forth with chronographic
specificity the precise day and hour that their onset manifested. Additionally, it is not
surprising that Petitioner did not mention shoulder pain when she saw a specialist for
unrelated care. As noted above, Petitioner reported pain after her vaccination, and
repeatedly linked her shoulder pain to the November 14, 2020 vaccination.
Accordingly, there is preponderant evidence that establishes the onset of
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours of vaccination.
C. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder
Petitioner’s pain was limited to her left shoulder. Respondent does not contest this
aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there is nothing in the records to suggest otherwise.
D. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim.
5

Case 1:23-vv-00326-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/28/26 Page 6 of 8
E. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on
November 14, 2020, in the United States. Ex. 2 at 2; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring
receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the
United States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil
award for her injury. Ex. 1 at 4; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table
SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
V. Damages
Petitioner argues that she is entitled to $70,000.00 for pain and suffering. Mot. at
22; Reply at 6. Respondent counters that a lower award of $30,000.00 is appropriate for
pain and suffering. Resp. at 12.
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I orally announced my ruling on
damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section
12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the May 29, 2025 hearing. An official recording of the
proceeding was taken by a court reporter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral
ruling as officially recorded.
In a recent decision I discussed at length the legal standards to be considered in
determining damages and prior GBS compensation within SPU. I incorporate herein my
prior discussion in Section II of Ashcraft v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1885V,
2025 WL 882752, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 27, 2025) to the instant Ruling and Decision.
Additionally, the official recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various
comparable cases as well as specific facts relating to Petitioner's medical history and
experience that further informed my resolution of this matter.
The evidence indicates that Ms. Maeckel suffered a mild SIRVA for approximately
one year. She delayed seeking treatment for over three months (ex. 8 at 71), which
undermines the severity of her injury because it speaks to the fact that her injury was not
so severe that she needed to seek medical care immediately. Petitioner’s treatment
6

Case 1:23-vv-00326-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/28/26 Page 7 of 8
period occurred over six-months, consisting of nine physical therapy sessions,
acupuncture, a cortisone injection, and diagnostic testing. Her pain was mild-to-moderate,
described as three-to-five out of ten. Ex. 9 at 5, 27. She may have had some lingering
pain when she stopped treating, as she reported she was feeling better as of December
6, 2021. Ex. 3 at 12.
The overall severity of the injury at issue herein is thus not high enough to warrant
the $70,000.00 requested by Petitioner. I note that the SIRVA cases cited by Petitioner
involved more significant treatment over longer periods of time, as noted by Respondent
in his briefing. Reply at 11-12.
Two cases more analogous to the circumstances herein are Valentine v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-0340V, 2025 WL 1707733, at *7 (Fed. Cl. May 16, 2025)
(awarding $45,000 for pain and suffering) and Baskin v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 21-2207V, 2025 WL 1891826, at *10 (Fed. Cl. June 2, 2025) (awarding $46,784.18
for pain and suffering).
The Valentine petitioner had a mild SIRVA and treated for approximately eleven
months, had one cortisone injection and eight physical therapy sessions. Although she
reported a high pain rating of nine out of ten at her first appointment, a cortisone injection
that day improved her pain levels and range of motion. Thereafter, her pain ratings were
lower. Additionally, she waited two months before seeking care. Valentine, 2025 WL
1707733 at *7-8. Similarly, the petitioner in Baskin suffered a relatively mild SIRVA that
persisted for almost fifteen months but delayed two months prior to seeking care. The
treatment consisted of a cortisone injection and eleven physical therapy sessions over a
three-month period. Baskin, 2025 WL 1891826 at *10-11.
Balancing the severity of Petitioner’s SIRVA injury, the course of treatment, and
based on the record as a whole, I find that $43,000.00 for actual pain and suffering is
reasonable and appropriate in this case.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the
record as a whole, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation. Further, I award
Petitioner a lump sum payment of $43,000.00 for actual pain and suffering to be
paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement to Petitioner.
7

Case 1:23-vv-00326-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/28/26 Page 8 of 8
This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would
be available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this Decision.5
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or
separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
8