VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00817
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00817
Petitioner: Emily Beck
Filed: 2023-06-05
Decided: 2025-11-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2021-09-09
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 52500

AI-assisted case summary:
On June 5, 2023, Emily Beck filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on September 9, 2021 caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The case first required a fact ruling because she did not have a complete conventional vaccine administration record.

Ms. Beck attested that she received the flu shot in her left deltoid at the Racine Department of Corrections, where she worked. Eleven days later, on September 20, 2021, she contacted her primary care provider reporting that her arm was in a lot of pain, that she had received the flu vaccine at work a couple of weeks earlier, and that she had experienced 8/10 arm pain since then. On September 22, she reported swelling and pain with overhead movement and said she believed the shot had been placed too high. Later records again linked left-shoulder pain to a September 2021 work flu shot, and email communications with her employer and TotalWellness supplied circumstantial vaccination details, including Afluria Quadrivalent by Seqirus and lot number P100355859.

Respondent initially argued that Ms. Beck had not proved vaccination. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found on April 21, 2025 that the circumstantial record, though barely sufficient, established that she received the flu vaccine intramuscularly in the left deltoid on September 9, 2021. Respondent then conceded entitlement, agreeing that the injury was consistent with Table SIRVA. Entitlement was granted on July 24, 2025. On November 6, 2025, Ms. Beck was awarded $52,500.00 for pain and suffering, payable through counsel's IOLTA account. She was represented by Paul R. Brazil of Muller Brazil, LLP.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine September 9, 2021 at workplace; left Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Proof-of-vaccination issue resolved by circumstantial evidence: Sept. 20 and Sept. 22 2021 reports of arm/shoulder pain after work flu shot, high placement, employer/vendor emails, TotalWellness Afluria Quadrivalent lot P100355859. Respondent then conceded Table SIRVA. Fact ruling April 21, 2025; entitlement July 24, 2025; damages November 6, 2025. Award $52,500.00 pain/suffering. Petition filed June 5, 2023. Attorney: Paul R. Brazil.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00817-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-22
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/21/2025) regarding 22 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/22/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-817V
EMILY BECK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 21, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On June 5, 2023, Emily Beck 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”), a defined Table injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on September 9, 2021. Petition at 1.
The parties dispute questions about the vaccine’s administration. For the reasons
discussed below, I find the flu vaccine at issue was most likely administered
intramuscularly in Petitioner’s left deltoid on September 9, 2021, as alleged.
1 Because this Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post
it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002.
44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).
This means the Fact 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 (2012).

Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/22/25 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History
At the initiation of the instant claim, rather than supplying a vaccine administration
record Petitioner submitted a “consent agreement” form for an unidentified/undated
vaccination. Ex. 1. She also filed email correspondence between herself and her
employer (dated October 5-8, 2021), showing Petitioner had arranged to discuss her
receipt of the subject vaccine (and her adverse reaction) with its administrator. Ex. 5.
As early as February 2024 (while this case was still in “pre-assignment review”), I
noted that Petitioner had failed to submit a vaccination record, including one identifying
the arm of administration. ECF No. 12 at 1. Petitioner was instructed to file a vaccine
consent form to remedy this issue, or an affidavit detailing the unsuccessful efforts to
obtain the records. Id. at 2. Petitioner thereafter filed email correspondence claiming to
include an attachment of the vaccine consent form (Ex. 12), and she re-filed the October
2021 email conversation between herself, her employer, and the vaccine vendor (Ex. 13).
This case was later assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). ECF No. 15.
Respondent determined in the summer of 2024 that this matter was not
appropriate for compensation. ECF No. 20. He thereafter filed his Rule 4(c) Report on
September 3, 2024, arguing that Petitioner failed to provide proof of vaccination. ECF No.
21 at 5. Respondent requested I make a finding of fact as to whether Petitioner has
offered sufficient evidence to prove her receipt of the covered flu vaccination. Id. That
issue is now ripe for resolution.
II. Authority
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). 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-
2

Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/22/25 Page 3 of 7
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this is
not an iron-clad rule. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 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 & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has 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 & Hum. 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 but 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 fact 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 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 & Hum. 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).
III. Findings of Fact
I make these findings after a complete review of the record, including all medical
records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I highlight the following
evidence:
3

Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/22/25 Page 4 of 7
• Petitioner attests that she received the subject flu vaccine in her left deltoid
on September 9, 2021, at her workplace – the Racine Department of
Corrections. Ex. 4 ¶ 2 (emphasis added).
• On September 20, 2021 (11 days after the alleged vaccination), Petitioner
contacted her primary care provider (“PCP”), reporting “her arm is in a lot of
pain.” Ex. 2 at 233. Specifically, she “got the flu vaccine at work a couple of
weeks ago and has had 8/10 arm pain since.” Id. Petitioner believed the
vaccine “was given too high on her arm[.]” Id.
• Two days later (on September 22, 2021 – approximately two weeks post
vaccination), Petitioner saw her PCP to follow up for “L arm pain[.]” Ex. 2 at
223. Petitioner reported that she “[h]ad [a] flu shot 2 wks [sic] ago” and has
had swelling and pain with overhead movement. Id. Petitioner reiterated that
she thought “they had given the shot quite high up.” Id.
• On October 21, 2021, Petitioner saw another physician in her PCP’s office
for an unrelated ailment. Ex. 2 at 115-23. During that visit, Petitioner “did
also mention [] she has been struggling with left shoulder pain since an
incident with a flu shot administration at work.” Id. at 123.
• Petitioner began physical therapy (“PT”) for left shoulder pain on December
21, 2021. Ex. 3 at 36. The date of injury was listed as “09/01/2021” with an
“insidious” onset. Id. Petitioner explained that she “had [a] flu vaccine to
[her] left shoulder in September of 2021” and that the “vaccine was put into
[the] left shoulder high.” Id. She also described pain with sleeping on her
left side. Id.
• On April 6, 2022, Petitioner had a visit with her pain management specialist
whom she saw for several issues (including left shoulder pain) and noted
that she “had intense pain after a flu injection.” Ex. 2 at 59.
• Additionally (and as previously mentioned), Petitioner submitted a “consent
agreement” for a vaccination. Ex. 1. The form does not indicate the date of
the subject vaccine, the lot number, expiration date, or any other identifying
information of the subject vaccination – including situs. See generally id.
• Petitioner filed an email correspondence between herself and her
supervisor dated October 5, 2021. Ex. 5; Ex. 13. The exchange begins with
4

Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/22/25 Page 5 of 7
Petitioner’s supervisor informing her that she followed up with the provider
who administered the subject vaccinations, stating “an employee who
received the flu shot ended up with an adverse reaction and is reporting that
the shot was not administered in the correct location on her shoulder.” See
Ex. 5 at 4; see also Ex. 13 at 4. Follow up emails from October 8, 2021,
show Petitioner’s inquiries with a third party regarding how to get in contact
with the vendor, TotalWellness, who provided the staffing for the flu clinics.
Ex. 5 at 1-3; Ex. 13 at 1-3.
• Petitioner submitted another email correspondence between herself and a
representative from TotalWellness (the entity that allegedly provided the
staffing for the flu vaccine clinics). Ex. 12. The email is dated May 12, 2023.
See id. at 1. The TotalWellness representative appears to have attached a
copy of Petitioner’s flu vaccination consent form “from 2021.” Id. The
representative informed Petitioner that the consent forms were stored
electronically, so the attachment “is a screenshot along with the consent
language.” Id.
• The TotalWellness representative also told Petitioner that “[t]he vaccine
used at the Racine Department of Corrections on 9/9/2021 was Afluria
Quadrivalent vaccine, manufactured by Seqirus. The lot number was
P100355859.” Ex. 12 at 1.
• Petitioner then emailed her counsel (also on May 12, 2023), stating that she
spoke with the TotalWellness representative “who said that the nurse did
not enter giving me the shot in their system, but they have the consent form
I signed on the day of, 5 minutes before they gave me the injection
(attached).” Ex. 12 at 1. While the email exhibit contains what looks like a
PDF attachment entitled “EmilyBeckConsent[,]” the actual attachment (or a
copy in the form of an exhibit) has not been separately filed for the record.
See id. at 2.
Any petitioner alleging a Vaccine Act claim has one foundational evidentiary
obligation: to prove that he “received a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table.”
Section 11(c)(1)(A). Additionally, when alleging a Table SIRVA injury as in this case, a
petitioner must show he received the vaccine intramuscularly in his injured upper
arm/shoulder. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017) (Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
for a Table SIRVA).
5

Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/22/25 Page 6 of 7
There are many Program cases in which direct proof of vaccine administration is
missing. But when presented with sufficient preponderant circumstantial evidence – such
as consistent references in contemporaneously created medical records and/or credible
witness testimony – special masters routinely find the alleged vaccination to have
occurred. Hinton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1140V, 2018 WL 3991001, at
*10-11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 9, 2018); Gambo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
13-0691V, 2014 WL 7739572, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 18, 2014); Lamberti v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-0507V, 2007 WL 1772058, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 31, 2007). Of course, not every case succeeds where such direct proof is
lacking. Evidence has been found to be insufficient in cases involving inconsistencies
related to Petitioner’s vaccination status and/or the events surrounding vaccination.
Matthews v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0414V, 2021 WL 4190265, at *6-7, 9
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 19, 2021), aff’d, 157 Fed. Cl. 777 (2021) (petitioner’s reliance
primarily on later notations of an allergic reaction).
In this case, the medical records do not at all reference a specific vaccination date
– a fact that is problematic given the absence of direct administration proof. Still, the
records closest in time to the alleged vaccination (11- and 13-days post vaccination,
respectively) describe onset of left shoulder pain following Petitioner’s receipt of a flu
vaccine approximately two weeks ago. See Ex. 2 at 233 (a September 20, 2021 report
that she “got the flu vaccine at work a couple of weeks ago and has had 8/10 arm pain
since.”); Ex. 2 at 223 (a September 22, 2021 report that she “[h]ad [a] flu shot 2 wks [sic]
ago” and shoulder symptoms since that time). More so, subsequent medical records note
onset following a flu vaccine in September 2021, generally. See Ex. 3 at 36 (a December
21, 2021 PT note that she “had flu vaccine to left shoulder in September of 2021”). Despite
some ambiguity, in each instance, Petitioner reported the onset of her pain following her
receipt of a flu vaccine – a factor that supports Petitioner’s allegations. See also Ex. 2 at
59.
Petitioner’s records otherwise reflect a consistent course of events. For instance,
the medical records show Petitioner – in nearly every post-vaccination encounter –
described the onset of shoulder pain following her receipt of a flu vaccine at work, which
she thought was administered incorrectly (too high up on her shoulder). Ex. 2 at 233
(noting on September 20, 2021, that she “got the flu vaccine at work” and she thought it
“was given too high on her arm”); Ex. 2 at 223 (noting on September 22, 2021, that she
thought “they had given the shot quite high up.”); Ex. 2 at 123 (noting on October 21,
2021, that she had been “struggling with left shoulder pain since an incident with a flu
shot administration at work”); Ex. 3 at 36 (noting on December 21, 2021, that she “had flu
vaccine to left shoulder in September of 2021” and that the “vaccine was put into left
shoulder high.”). Such consistent record entries further supports Petitioner’s allegations.
6

Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/22/25 Page 7 of 7
Notably, Petitioner did not in this case submit a workers’ compensation claim
despite her receiving the subject vaccination at work. See, e.g., ECF No. 19 (Petitioner’s
status report confirming she did not receive workers’ compensation benefits). I will not
speculate as to the reason for her decision to forego this course of action. But its absence
makes resolution of this question more difficult. Prescott v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 21-2005V, 2024 WL 1366402 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 29, 2024) (relying on
evidence that the petitioner’s employer did not contest the workers’ compensation claim
documenting the alleged date of vaccination and actually referred the petitioner for
treatment as a result of the vaccine injury to establish a reasonable belief that the
petitioner received the subject vaccine on the date in question).
Nevertheless, the contemporaneous medical records, paired with the October
2021 email communications and the May 2023 vaccination information (supplied by the
vaccine vendor, TotalWellness), support proof of vaccination in this case – albeit barely.
While it would have been preferable for Petitioner to have provided the actual attachment
of the vaccine consent form allegedly attached to the May 12, 2023 email communication,
the circumstantial evidence submitted tips the scale ever so slightly in favor of Petitioner
here. Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence establishing that she received a flu
vaccine intramuscularly in her left deltoid on September 9, 2021, as alleged.
IV. Scheduling Order
In light of my findings regarding proof of vaccination, Petitioner should finalize a
reasonable demand which she should convey, along with any needed supporting
documentation, to Respondent.
Accordingly, by no later than Wednesday, May 21, 2025, the parties shall file a
joint status report concerning the status of Petitioner’s damages demand and, if
appropriate, stating whether and when Respondent would like to file an amended Rule
4(c) Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00817-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-08-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/24/2025) regarding 27 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/25/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-817V
EMILY BECK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 24, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On June 5, 2023, Emily Beck (“Petitioner”) 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 from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination
on September 9, 2021. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the
residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 21, 2025, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that, in light of my Finding of Fact regarding Proof of Vaccination, Petitioner is
now entitled to compensation in this case. Am. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, 5,
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-00817-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/25/25 Page 2 of 2
ECF No. 25. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is
consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under
the Act.” Id. at 5.
In view of Respondent’s position and 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
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00817-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-16
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/06/2025) regarding 33 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-817V
EMILY BECK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 6, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On June 5, 2023, Emily Beck 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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered to her
on September 9, 2021. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months,
and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of
an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 24, 2025, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 27. On November 6, 2025, Respondent filed a
Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
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-00817-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 5
$52,500.00 in pain and suffering. Proffer at 2, ECF No. 32. In the Proffer, Respondent
represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. See id. Based on the record
as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $52,500.00 for pain and suffering 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-00817-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
EMILY BECK, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 23-0817V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On June 5, 2023, Emily Beck (“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 she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza
vaccine she received on September 9, 2021. Petition at 1-2. On July 21, 2025, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report advising that in
light of the Chief Special Master’s Findings of Fact, ruling that petitioner received a flu vaccine
intramuscularly into her left deltoid on September 9, 2021, and the medical evidence submitted
in this case, respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the terms of the Act for a Table injury for SIRVA after a flu vaccination.
Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 5. ECF No. 25. On July 24, 2025, the Chief Special Master issued

Case 1:23-vv-00817-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 5
a Ruling on Entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA.1 ECF No.
27.
I. Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $52,500.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). This amount represents 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 following:2
a lump sum payment of $52,500.00, 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
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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 July 24, 2025, entitlement decision.
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-00817-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 5
TRACI R. PATTON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Mitchell Jones
MITCHEL JONES
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) 305-1748
mitchell.jones@usdoj.gov
DATED: November 6, 2025
3