VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00661
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00661
Petitioner: Terry Cooper
Filed: 2023-05-04
Decided: 2025-09-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2021-10-16
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 25300

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 4, 2023, Terry Cooper filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination on October 16, 2021 caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent contested entitlement, arguing that the most contemporaneous medical records did not document shoulder pain within 48 hours.

Mr. Cooper did not seek shoulder care for nearly six months. At a December 2021 routine visit, he mentioned knee pain and his flu and COVID vaccinations but not shoulder pain. When he returned to his primary-care provider on April 11, 2022, he reported left shoulder pain since the day of the flu vaccination and said symptoms clearly began the evening after the shot. Two days later, physical therapy records documented reduced left-shoulder range of motion and strength. Mr. Cooper explained that he generally avoided doctors if he could manage problems himself, researched SIRVA, tried a home shoulder exercise plan, and delayed formal care because of COVID-19 exposure concerns. His wife, Linda Cooper, a retired nurse who had run flu-shot clinics, recalled seeing the bandage that evening and believing it was placed too high; she said he was restless that night and worse the next day.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found onset within 48 hours and granted entitlement on September 10, 2025, while noting the long delay in care as evidence that the injury was mild enough to tolerate with conservative measures. Damages were then resolved by proffer. On September 19, 2025, Mr. Cooper was awarded $25,300.68, consisting of $25,000.00 for pain and suffering and $300.68 for past unreimbursable expenses, paid through counsel's IOLTA account.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, October 16, 2021, left Table SIRVA. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED and COMPENSATED. Respondent disputed 48-hour onset due almost six-month treatment delay and no shoulder complaint at December 2021 PCP visit. Chief Special Master Corcoran credited April 2022 reports of pain since vaccine evening, petitioner declaration, wife Linda Cooper's retired-nurse observation that bandage was too high and pain worsened overnight, COVID avoidance/home exercises, and PT Apr-Jun 2022; mildness noted for damages. Award September 19, 2025: $25,000 pain and suffering + $300.68 expenses = $25,300.68. Attorney Jessica Anne Olins; respondent Mary Novakovic.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00661-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-28
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/10/2025) regarding 27 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0661V
TERRY COOPER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 10, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Mary Novakovic, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 4, 2023, Terry Cooper 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine received on October 16, 2021. Petition at ¶1,
23. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that the onset of Petitioner’s pain more likely
than not occurred within 48 hours of his vaccination, and that he has otherwise satisfied
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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-00661-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 7
the requirements of a Table SIRVA claim. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On December 11, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report contesting
Petitioner’s entitlement to compensation because “Petitioner’s most contemporaneous
medical records fail to show that the onset of his alleged shoulder pain was within forty-
eight hours of his flu vaccination.” Rule 4(c) Report at 4. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Findings of Fact (“Memo.”) on February 5,
2024. ECF No. 59. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on April 4, 2024 and Petitioner
filed a reply (“Repl.”) on April 10, 2024. ECF No. 24-25.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Facts
A. Medical Records
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left deltoid on October 16, 2021. Ex. 1 at 7.
Two months later, on December 9, 2021, Petitioner saw his primary care provider (“PCP”)
for a routine examination. Ex. 3 at 23. During the visit, he reported left knee pain from
“bumping the knee on his car about 4 weeks ago,” for which he was advised to use over-
the-counter medications. Id. He also reported that he had received both flu and Covid-19
vaccines, but there was no mention of shoulder pain. Id.
On April 11, 2022 (now nearly six months after vaccination), Petitioner returned to
his PCP with left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 20. He reported that he had had pain “since [the]
day of his flu vax administration at GMC in 10/21,” and that “symptoms clearly began in
the evening following that flu vax.” Id. He mentioned that he was recently working in his
garage and experienced an increase in discomfort. Id. He reported that he had used some
NSAIDs and ice to treat his pain. Id. He was referred to physical therapy. Id.
Petitioner began physical therapy on April 13, 2022. Ex. 2 at 26. He reported
having a “flu shot back in October and [having] pain in the shoulder ever since.” Id. On
exam, he had reduced range of motion and strength in the left shoulder. Id. at 27. He had
nine physical therapy sessions through June 15, 2022. Id. at 7-24.
B. Witness Testimony
Petitioner filed a declaration in support of his claim. Ex. 4. He stated that he “tr[ies]
to avoid going to doctors if there is a way . . . to manage [his] problems on [his] own.
Id. at ¶5. He remembers having pain in his shoulder on the day of his vaccination that he
2

Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 7
believed was normal and would resolve on its own. Id. at ¶10. He further recalled that
when his wife saw the bandage from his vaccination later that night, she was shocked by
how high the Band-Aid was on [his] shoulder.” Id. at ¶11.
Petitioner stated that the pain did not resolve, but instead, worsened. Ex. 4 at ¶12.
He recalled doing internet research and speaking to friends and learning about SIRVA
injuries. Id. at ¶13, 15. When his research revealed “that these injuries are usually treated
with physical therapy,” Petitioner “decided to create [his] own shoulder-focused exercise
plan to do on my own at home.” Id. at ¶16. He also used over-the-counter treatments and
rest to manage his pain. Id. at ¶17.
Petitioner stated that he did not discuss his shoulder pain during his December 9,
2021 visit with his PCP because “[he] already knew that [he] would be prescribed physical
therapy, and [he] wanted to avoid going to more in-office appointments” due to the risk of
Covid-19. Id. at 14, 20. He stated that he made an appointment to address his shoulder
pain in April 2022 because “the constant nag of [his shoulder pain] was unbearable” and
“the rate of Covid infections in [his] local area were trending down.” Id. at ¶23. He reported
that his shoulder pain resolved in October 2022, after physical therapy and continuing his
home exercises. Id. at ¶26-27.
Petitioner’s wife, Linda Cooper, also filed a declaration. Ex. 8. Ms. Cooper states
that she is “a retired nurse” and has “run several flu shot clinics.” Id. at ¶2. She recalled
that she saw the band-aid on Petitioner’s arm the evening after her flu vaccination and “it
was way too high.” Id. She recalled that “it didn’t bother him much then,” but “during the
night he was restless and couldn’t get comfortable,” and was worse the following day. Id.
at ¶3.
Ms. Cooper recalled speaking to colleagues and learning that they had seen
similar situations, and those patients were referred to physical therapy. Ex. 8 at ¶5. She
recalled that at the time, she and Petitioner were “taking every measure to stay safe” from
Covid-19. Id. at ¶7.
III. Applicable Legal Standards
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act Section
11(c)(1). The Vaccine Act also requires that a petitioner demonstrate that “residual effects
or complications” of a vaccine-related injury continued for more than six months. Vaccine
Act §11(c)(1)(D)(i). A petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through self-assertion unsubstantiated by medical records or medical opinion.
§13(a)(1)(A). “[T]he fact that a petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at
3

Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 7
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Section 11(c)(1).
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 & Human 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 & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
4

Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/28/25 Page 5 of 7
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Findings of Fact – Onset
Respondent argues that the 48-hour onset SIRVA requirement cannot be
established. Resp. at 2-6. In support, he points to Petitioner’s delay of almost six months
before seeking treatment for his shoulder pain despite an intervening appointment with
his PCP four months prior. Id. at 3. Respondent argues that “there are no objective
findings from a physician documenting the presence of shoulder pain in the days
immediately following vaccination.” Id.
However, despite Respondent’s characterization, there is support in the record that
Petitioner experienced pain soon after his vaccination. When Petitioner first sought
treatment on April 11, 2022, he reported that he had had pain “since [the] day of his flu
vax administration at GMC in 10/21” and that “symptoms clearly began in the evening
following that flu vax.” Ex. 3 at 20. Petitioner again related the onset of his pain to his
vaccination the previous October when he began physical therapy. Ex. 2 at 26. Further,
Petitioner stated in his declaration that the pain he felt on the day of his vaccination never
subsided – but persisted and worsened over time. Ex. 4 at ¶12. Similarly, Petitioner’s wife
recalled that Petitioner was restless through the night after his vaccination and worsened
by the following day. Ex. 8 at ¶3. Although Respondent seems to argue that Petitioner
must present a medical record from the first 48 hours after vaccination, such a standard
is not only not required, but would be impossible for most SIRVA claimants. Petitioner’s
5

Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/28/25 Page 6 of 7
statements, and those of his wife, are consistent with the available medical records
regarding onset within 48 hours of vaccination.
Respondent also highlights that Petitioner had an in-person appointment with his
PCP in December 2021, two months after his vaccination, during which he did not report
shoulder pain. Resp. at 2-3. While Petitioner could have reported his shoulder pain to his
PCP during this appointment, he has provided a reasonable explanation for why he did
not. Petitioner states that he did research and consulted with friends and family, including
his wife who is a retired nurse, and determined that he likely would have been prescribed
physical therapy if he visited a doctor. Ex. 4 at ¶13, 15. He therefore did not mention the
shoulder pain during his December 2021 appointment, because he believed he would be
referred to in-person physical therapy and wanted to avoid frequent visits due to potential
Covid-19 exposure. Id. at ¶19-20. Once Petitioner’s pain reached a “constant nag” that
was “almost unbearable” and Covid-19 infection rates declined, however, he sought
formal treatment. Ex. 4 at ¶23.
Although Petitioner’s delay in seeking treatment is highly relevant to the
determination of damages (since it underscores that the SIRVA was mild enough to be
tolerated for a considerable period of time), it does not, in light of the medical record
evidence, defeat his proof of onset within 48 hours after his vaccination. Accordingly, I
find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred
within 48 hours of vaccination.
V. Ruling on Entitlement
A. Requirements for Table SIRVA
I have found that Petitioner has preponderantly established that his pain began
within 48 hours of his vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii). Respondent has not
contested Petitioner’s proof on the remaining elements of a Table SIRVA. See 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(c)(10)(i),(iii-iv). Accordingly, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence to establish that he suffered a Table SIRVA injury.
B. Additional Requirements for Entitlement
Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, he need not
prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, he must satisfy the other requirements of
Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of injury, and
the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
The vaccine record shows that Petitioner received an influenza vaccination in his
left deltoid on October 16, 2021. Ex. 1 at 7; Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a
covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration within the United States
6

Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/28/25 Page 7 of 7
or its territories). Additionally, Petitioner has stated that he has not filed any civil action or
received any compensation for his vaccine-related injury, and there is no evidence to the
contrary. Ex. 4 at ¶29; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Finally, Petitioner’s
medical records reveal that he suffered the residual effects of his vaccine injury for more
than six months, and Respondent does not argue otherwise. See e.g., Ex. 2; Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all
requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case. A separate damages order will be issued.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00661-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-31
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/19/2025) regarding 31 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 36 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0661V
TERRY COOPER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 19, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Mary Novakovic, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 4, 2023, Terry Cooper 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) following an influenza vaccination he received on October 16, 2021. Petition at
¶¶ 1, 23. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On September 10, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for his SIRVA. On September 18, 2025, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$25,300.68, comprised of $25,000.00 for pain and suffering and $300.68 for past
unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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-00661-UNJ Document 36 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 5
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $25,300.68, comprised of $25,000.00 for pain and suffering and
$300.68 for past unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section
15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 36 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
TERRY COOPER,
Petitioner,
No. 23-661V
v.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON DAMAGES
On May 4, 2023, Terry Cooper (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or
“Act”), alleging that he suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on October 16, 2021.
Petition at 1. On December 11, 2023, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report contesting petitioner’s entitlement to compensation
under the terms of the Act. ECF No. 17. On February 5, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for
Ruling on the Record with a supporting memorandum. ECF Nos. 20, 21. Respondent filed a
response on April 3, 2024, and petitioner filed a reply on April 10, 2024. ECF Nos. 24, 25. On
September 10, 2025, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner
was entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 27.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special
Master’s September 10, 2025, entitlement decision.
1

Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 36 Filed 10/31/25 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $25,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that he incurred past unreimbursable expenses
related to his claim. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable
expenses in the amount of $300.68. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $25,300.68 to be paid through
an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00661-UNJ Document 36 Filed 10/31/25 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VORIS E. JOHNSON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Mary Novakovic
MARY NOVAKOVIC
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 616-2879
Email: Mary.E.Novakovic@usdoj.gov
Date: September 18, 2025
3