VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00606
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00606
Petitioner: Allison Hine
Filed: 2025-07-30
Decided: 2025-09-09
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2022-02-07
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Allison Hine, a 30-year-old pregnant woman, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on April 28, 2023. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine administered on February 7, 2022. Petitioner counsel was Paul R. Brazil of Muller Brazil, LLP. Respondent counsel was Eleanor Hanson of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the ruling on entitlement on September 9, 2025. Petitioner's past medical history indicated she was 28 weeks pregnant at the time of vaccination and had no prior left shoulder issues. Five days after the Tdap vaccine, on February 11, 2022, Petitioner contacted her OBGYN reporting significant soreness in her left arm, which was recommended to be treated with Tylenol and ice. On February 13, 2022, she presented to an urgent care facility with left shoulder pain, stating the pain began after the Tdap vaccine and that the injection site was "higher than usual." Examination revealed tenderness, pain at the end of range of motion, and positive signs of impingement. She was diagnosed with bursitis and instructed to continue with Tylenol and ice. Treatment options were noted as limited by her pregnancy. She had a physical therapy evaluation on March 8, 2022, showing limited range of motion secondary to pain and reduced strength, but was unable to continue due to out-of-pocket costs. Petitioner gave birth on April 29, 2022. Between March and September 2022, she had four medical appointments for other issues, including postpartum depression, anxiety, and an abdominal hernia, with no specific mention of shoulder pain. On September 28, 2022, approximately seven months after vaccination, Petitioner saw her primary care provider for ongoing left shoulder pain, described as "post Tdap from pregnancy." Examination showed tenderness and pain, but normal strength and range of motion. She was diagnosed with bursitis again and referred to physical therapy, also receiving a steroid injection. Respondent argued that Petitioner could not meet the severity requirement due to the nearly seven-month gap in treatment and intervening medical appointments for other conditions. However, the Special Master found the delay in treatment reasonable given her pregnancy and postpartum recovery. The Special Master determined that Petitioner met the criteria for a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a Table injury. This included having no prior history of shoulder issues, timely onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination, pain limited to the affected shoulder, and no other condition explaining her symptoms. The Special Master found that Petitioner satisfied the severity requirement, noting that her symptoms persisted despite the gap in formal treatment, though the mild nature of the injury might impact damages. Entitlement to compensation was granted, with damages to be determined later. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Allison Hine, age 30, received a Tdap vaccine on February 7, 2022. She alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a Table injury. The Special Master found that Petitioner met the criteria for a Table SIRVA, including no prior history of shoulder issues, onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination (reported February 11, 2022), pain limited to the left shoulder, and no other condition explaining the symptoms. The Special Master also found that Petitioner met the severity requirement of more than six months of residual effects, finding the nearly seven-month gap in formal treatment reasonable due to pregnancy and postpartum recovery. Entitlement was granted, with damages pending. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the ruling on September 9, 2025. Petitioner counsel was Paul R. Brazil, and Respondent counsel was Eleanor Hanson. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00606-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-09
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/30/2025) regarding 22 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00606-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/09/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-606V
ALLISON HINE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 30, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Eleanor Hanson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 28, 2023, Allison Hine 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) caused by a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine administered on February 7, 2022. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
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 (2012).

Case 1:23-vv-00606-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/09/25 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
On January 9, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation,
because Petitioner could not meet the severity requirement of the Vaccine Act. ECF No.
15 at 4 - 6. On March 22, 2024, Petitioner was ordered to submit a Motion for a Ruling on
the Record, as well as any additional information addressing issues raised in
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. ECF No. 16.
Petitioner did so on April 26, 2024. Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling Regarding
Entitlement (“Mot.”), ECF No. 18. Respondent opposed the motion on May 23, 2024,
reiterating the arguments set forth in the Rule 4(c) Report. Respondent’s Response to
Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 19. Petitioner did not file
a reply. The matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Relevant Factual History
Petitioner’s past medical history notes that Petitioner was 28 weeks pregnant at
the time of vaccination, and had no reports of prior left shoulder issues. Ex. 2 at 16. On
February 7, 2022, Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her left shoulder. Ex. 1.
Five days later, on February 11, 2022, Petitioner contacted her OBGYN and
informed the nurse that after her vaccination, “her arm had been very sore” and that “it
maybe getting worse”. Ex. 6 at 157. It was recommended that Petitioner use Tylenol, ice
her shoulder, and follow up with her primary care provider. Id.
On February 13, 2024, Petitioner presented to Wellness Span Urgent Care for left
shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 16. Petitioner stated she received her Tdap vaccine the previous
Monday and was having pain in the shoulder ever since. Id. Petitioner also stated that the
injection was placed “higher than usual.” Id. Physical examination showed her shoulder
was tender to palpitation, she had pain at the end of range of flexion and abduction, and
positive signs of impingement. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with bursitis and was
instructed to continue with ice and Tylenol. Id. at 16.
Petitioner returned to urgent care for abdominal pain on February 15 and 18, 2024.
Ex. 2 at 18. There are no reports of shoulder pain at that time.
On March 3, 2022, Petitioner had an appointment with her primary care provider
for left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 87. Petitioner stated the pain started after receiving her
Tdap vaccination, approximately four weeks prior. Id. at 91. Physical examination showed
normal strength and range of motion and Petitioner was diagnosed with bursitis. Id. It was
2

Case 1:23-vv-00606-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/09/25 Page 3 of 8
noted that “treatment options limited by patient’s pregnancy.” Id. She was advised to rest,
ice, take Tylenol as needed, and referred to physical therapy. Id.
Petitioner received a physical therapy evaluation on March 8, 2022. Ex. 4 at 13. At
that time, she showed “limited L[eft] shoulder range of motion secondary to pain” and
reduced strength. Id. Petitioner’s treatment plan was one to two sessions per week for
four weeks, however, she was unable to attend any additional sessions due to out-of-
pocket liability. Ex. 3 at 125 (indicating Petitioner paid $500 for her initial session).
Petitioner gave birth to her baby on April 29, 2022. Ex. 6 at 183. In the interim
period (between March 3 and September 28, 2022), she had four medical appointments
that did not specifically reference shoulder pain. On April 23, 2022, Petitioner reported
that her water may have broken, and she may be in labor. Ex. 6 at 166. Petitioner was
seen for worsening postpartum depression and anxiety on May 25, 2022. Ex. 3 at 108.
On June 9, 2022, Petitioner was seen for a post-partum visit. Ex. 6 at 197-201. Petitioner
had another follow-up with her OBGYN on September 26, 2022, and to address an
abdominal hernia. Ex. 6 at 207. At this appointment Petitioner had complaints of joint
pain, however, did not specially describe shoulder pain. Id. at 209.
On September 28, 2022, Petitioner saw her primary care provider for ongoing left
shoulder pain “post Tdap from pregnancy.” Ex. 3 at 125. Physical examination showed
Petitioner had tenderness and pain, but no signs of impingement, normal strength, and
normal range of motion. Id. She was diagnosed with bursitis and again referred to physical
therapy. Id. at 124. Petitioner also received a steroid injection. Id. at 127.
Petitioner has submitted a declaration in support of her petition on April 26, 2024.
Ex. 7. Therein, she explains that she struggled with medical issues following the birth of
her daughter on April 29, 2022, including a hernia, post-partum anxiety, and depression.
Id. at 1. Additionally, at that time she was caring for her three-year-old. However, by
September of 2022 she “was ready to get [her] shoulder figured out.” Id.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
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,3 a petitioner must establish
3 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
3

Case 1:23-vv-00606-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/09/25 Page 4 of 8
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).
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).
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).
4

Case 1:23-vv-00606-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/09/25 Page 5 of 8
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).
A. Severity Requirement
The first issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner has demonstrated that she
suffered “residual effects or complications of [the injury alleged] for more than six months
after the administration of the vaccine,” as required for eligibility under the Vaccine
Program. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i).
There is no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine on February 7, 2022.
Therefore, she must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual symptoms
continued at least through August 7, 2022 (assuming onset of pain the day of vaccination).
See, e.g., Herren v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-100V, 2014 WL 3889070,
at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014); see also Hinnefeld v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL 1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2012)
(dismissing case where medical history revealed that petitioner's injury resolved less than
two months after onset).
The record establishes that Petitioner’s initial treatment occurred during her third
trimester, between February and March 2022. Ex. 6 at 157; Ex. 4 at 13. After her initial
physical therapy appointment on March 3, Petitioner next sought care on September 28,
2022. Ex. 3 at 125. She stated at that time that she was experiencing ongoing shoulder
pain “post Tdap from pregnancy.” Ex. 3 at 125.
5

Case 1:23-vv-00606-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/09/25 Page 6 of 8
Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot establish severity due to the delay in
treatment of nearly seven months. Opp. at 6. However, the record from September of
2022, states that Petitioner sought care for “ongoing left shoulder pain” (emphasis added),
suggesting that her shoulder had not completely improved. Ex. 3 at 125. Additionally,
Petitioner’s declaration indicates that following the birth of her child, her shoulder was not
a priority due to post-partum issues. Ex. 7 at 1. Delaying treatment for these reasons is
not unreasonable.
Respondent also argues that Petitioner had four intervening medical appointments
wherein she did not complain of left shoulder pain. Opp. at 6. However, as Petitioner
notes, these four appointments were for specific reasons related to her post-partum
conditions including depression, anxiety, and an abdominal hernia. Mot. at 6-7. It is
reasonable to not mention shoulder pain when seeking specific care for these conditions.
Ex. 6 at 166 (record from April 23, 2022); Ex. 3 at 108 (record from May 25, 2022
addressing post-partum mental health issues); Ex. 6 at 197-201 (record from June 9,
2022 for a post-partum visit); Ex. 6 at 207 (record from September 26, 2022 pertaining to
an abdominal hernia).
The overall record thus constitutes a sufficient, albeit close, showing of severity to
meet the evidentiary standard. It is likely that Petitioner’s symptoms persisted throughout
the summer of 2022 and through the six-month deadline, despite the cessation of formal
treatment and subsequent gap. However, the consistently light history of treatment
suggests a mild injury - which will likely impact damages in this case.
B. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. 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 that would explain the symptoms experienced after
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.
6

Case 1:23-vv-00606-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/09/25 Page 7 of 8
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
her Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury close-in-time to
vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on February 11, 2022. Ex. 6 at 157.
Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner meets this criterion.
3. 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.
4. 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, and there
is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists.
C. 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
February 7, 2022, in the United States. Ex. 1; 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. 5; 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.
7

Case 1:23-vv-00606-UNJ Document 23 Filed 09/09/25 Page 8 of 8
Conclusion
In view of the evidence of record, I find that there is preponderant evidence
that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. Further, based on
the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8