VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00848
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00848
Petitioner: Barbara Powers
Filed: 2023-06-07
Decided: 2024-09-16
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2021-11-19
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 70000

AI-assisted case summary:
Barbara Powers filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on June 7, 2023, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination on November 19, 2021. She further alleged that the residual effects of her injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on May 23, 2024, conceding that Ms. Powers suffered a SIRVA Table injury and did not contest her entitlement to compensation, stating she had satisfied all legal prerequisites. On July 22, 2024, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding Ms. Powers entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on August 15, 2024, the respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation, recommending an award of $70,000.00 for pain and suffering, which Ms. Powers agreed to. In a Decision Awarding Damages filed on September 16, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Ms. Powers a lump sum payment of $70,000.00 for pain and suffering, representing compensation for all damages available under the Act. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury beyond it being a SIRVA. Petitioner's counsel was Brynna Gang of Kraus Law Group, LLC, and respondent's counsel was Naseem Kourosh of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Barbara Powers alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on November 19, 2021. The respondent conceded that Petitioner suffered a SIRVA injury as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and did not contest entitlement. The Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on July 22, 2024. Subsequently, a Proffer on Award of Compensation was filed on August 15, 2024, recommending $70,000.00 for pain and suffering, which Petitioner agreed to. Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages on September 16, 2024, awarding a lump sum of $70,000.00 for pain and suffering. The public text does not detail specific medical experts, the mechanism of injury beyond SIRVA, or specific clinical findings. Petitioner was represented by Brynna Gang (Kraus Law Group, LLC) and Respondent by Naseem Kourosh (U.S. Department of Justice).

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00848-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-11
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/08/2024) regarding 15 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/11/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-848V
BARBARA POWERS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 8, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On June 7, 2023, Barbara Powers 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”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine she received in her right shoulder on November 19, 2021. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters.
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-00848-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/11/24 Page 2 of 8
For the reasons discussed below, I find the Tdap vaccine alleged as causal was
more likely than not administered in Petitioner’s right shoulder, as alleged.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Shortly after the initiation of this claim, Petitioner submitted her medical records,
affidavit, and a statement of completion. ECF Nos. 6, 8. Among her medical records,
Petitioner submitted her proof of vaccination – reflecting a computerized entry stating the
subject Tdap vaccination was administered in her “left deltoid.” Ex. 2 at 55. This case was
then activated and assigned to SPU in October 2023. ECF No. 9.
On December 12, 2023, Respondent filed a status report stating that he has
“undertaken medical review of this case” and requesting the Court issue a fact ruling
regarding the site of vaccine administration. ECF No. 12. In support of his request,
Respondent noted that the vaccination record states the subject Tdap vaccination was
administered in Petitioner’s left arm. Id. (citing Ex. 2 at 55). Respondent highlighted that
Petitioner’s subsequent reporting states she received the vaccination in her right arm. Id.
(citing Ex. 2 at 40-51; Ex. 1 at 72, 75, 79; Ex. 4 at 15, 21; Ex. 5 at 76). When Respondent
inquired with Petitioner regarding this discrepancy, Petitioner reported “she was not able
to locate additional documentation of vaccination.” Id. Thus, Respondent requests that
the Court issue a fact ruling resolving the issue of situs. Id. Petitioner subsequently
submitted two witness affidavits. ECF No. 13. This matter is ripe for resolution.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in her
right arm. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) I.C & II.C. (2017) (Tdap vaccination).
III. 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
2

Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/11/24 Page 3 of 8
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, 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, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & 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 that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (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).
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 § 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).
3

Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/11/24 Page 4 of 8
IV. Finding of Fact
The following finding of fact is based on a complete review of the record, including
the petition, all medical records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I
highlight the following:
• Ex. 6 ¶¶ 4-6, Petitioner’s affidavit, wherein she attests that on November
19, 2021, she tripped and hit her head and left side on a bike rack, thus
requiring a tetanus shot. She states that she “received the tetanus shot in
[her] right arm. [She] was sitting down and the nurse was standing over
[her].” Id. ¶ 6. Petitioner recalls a “pretty ridiculous” bunny band aid, that
was “high up on [her] shoulder.” Id. Petitioner notes that she took a bath the
night of the subject vaccination and “noticed that [her] right arm seemed
shaky.” Id. ¶ 7. When she awoke from a nap, she “could barely move [her]
right arm.” Id. Petitioner attests that she “remember[s] particularly that when
[she] tried to move [her] right arm away from [her] waist it just stayed there
. . . frozen.” Id.
• Ex. 2 at 50, a record of Petitioner’s November 21, 2021 visit (two days post
vaccination) with the urgent care facility from whom she received the subject
Tdap vaccination. Petitioner reported right shoulder stiffness, although the
physician’s evaluation also noted “[s]houlder – left: tenderness” and
described the left shoulder as “stiff, but non-tender to palpation[.]” Id. at 51.
The physician’s assessment included “pain of [the] right shoulder joint on
movement” and Petitioner was given work restrictions “regarding the right
shoulder.” Id. at 51-52. Petitioner attests that she complained of right
shoulder symptoms during this visit. Ex. 6 ¶ 8.
• Ex. 2 at 46, a record from Petitioner’s follow-up appointment with the urgent
care facility on November 27, 2021, noting that her “[right] shoulder pain
began when she got home” on November 19, 2021, following receipt of the
Tdap vaccination. A physical examination revealed “severely” limited range
of motion (“ROM”) in the right shoulder, along with tenderness and swelling.
Id. at 47. The physician assessed Petitioner with “acute pain of right
shoulder” and referred her to physical therapy (“PT”) “for [right] shoulder
pain.” Id. at 47-48.
• Ex. 2 at 40, a record from Petitioner’s December 4, 2021 urgent care follow-
up visit for ongoing right shoulder pain. Petitioner reiterated her belief that
4

Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/11/24 Page 5 of 8
such pain was due to her Tdap vaccination.3 Id. An examination revealed
diminished ROM and tenderness to palpation of the right shoulder. Id. at 41.
The physician prescribed steroids and recommended PT for her right
shoulder pain. Id. at 42.
• Ex. 5 at 76, a record from Petitioner’s initial PT evaluation on December 9,
2021. Petitioner “present[ed] . . . with [a complaint of] right shoulder pain”
with an onset date of November 19, 2021, following “a tetanus shot in the
right arm[.]” Id. She specifically reported that “the night of the shot she
began having severe pain in the right shoulder[,] which persisted for several
days.” Id. Petitioner exhibited decreased ROM and tenderness of the right
shoulder upon examination. Id. at 77.
• Ex. 1 at 72, Petitioner’s January 7, 2022 visit with her primary care physician
(“PCP”) for “musculoskeletal pain.” Petitioner reported right shoulder pain
and noted she “was given a tetanus booster in [her] right arm and . . . it has
affected her right arm ever since.”4 Id.
• Ex. 2 at 19, a record from Petitioner’s January 24, 2022 visit with a different
provider at the urgent care facility where she received the subject
vaccination, for ongoing right shoulder pain. The record contains an
“impression” that the tetanus vaccination “was documented as being given
in the left deltoid and [Petitioner] is reporting injury in [the] right [deltoid].” Id.
at 20. Petitioner attests that it was during this visit she was told that “the
vaccine administrator had recorded that she had given [Petitioner] the
vaccine in [her] left arm.” Ex. 6 ¶ 22. She contends “[t]his is completely
inaccurate” and that she has “always reported that [her] right shoulder pain
was from [her] vaccination in that arm.” Id. Petitioner asserts that the left
deltoid entry was a “charting error.” Id.
• Ex. 4 at 7, a record from Petitioner’s orthopedic evaluation on February 23,
2022. The chief complaint was recorded as ‘“I fell and hurt my Right
shoulder 11/19/2021.”’ Petitioner stated that following this fall, she received
a tetanus shot “which was performed into the right shoulder.” Id. Petitioner
3 Petitioner maintained this belief at several additional follow-up visits at the urgent care facility for her right
shoulder pain. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 35 (a December 11, 2021 follow-up visit); Ex. 2 at 30 (a December 27,
2021 follow-up visit); Ex. 2 at 24 (a January 10, 2022 follow-up visit); Ex. 2 at 12 (a February 7, 2022 follow-
up visit).
4 The same note appears in a note for Petitioner’s April 22, 2022 follow-up visit with her PCP. Ex. 1 at 79.
5

Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/11/24 Page 6 of 8
underwent an examination of the right shoulder and was diagnosed with
right rotator cuff syndrome. Id. at 8.
• Ex. 4 at 19, a record from Petitioner’s June 23, 2022 MRI of the right
shoulder – showing moderate supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinosis,
moderate degenerative changes to the acromioclavicular joint, and “mild
edema within supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles with mild to
moderate fatty infiltration, suggestive of denervation changes.”
• Ex. 4 at 15, a record from Petitioner’s July 11, 2022 visit stating Petitioner
“ha[d] been having right shoulder pain after a tetanus injection that was
administered too high.” Petitioner received a steroid injection in the right
shoulder to address her right shoulder symptoms. Id. at 15-16.
• Ex. 3 at 24, a record from Petitioner’s initial visit for her second round of PT
on July 26, 2022, noting “right shoulder pain after receiving a tetanus shot
on 11/19/22 [sic].” The physician wrote that Petitioner “presented to the
clinic with signs and symptoms of right shoulder pain secondary to SIRVA.”
Id. at 25. Petitioner continued PT for her right shoulder pain for several
months throughout 2022. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at 12-16.
• Ex. 7 ¶¶ 5-6, an affidavit from Petitioner’s co-worker (Lindsay Binder),
attesting that the day after Petitioner’s fall and subsequent Tdap
vaccination, Ms. Binder observed that Petitioner “couldn’t raise her right
arm” when reaching for a laptop. Petitioner told Ms. Binder that “she had
gotten a tetanus shot . . . the day before and that her right arm was now
very painful from her vaccination.” Id. Ms. Binder notes that they “talked
specifically about her vaccination being in her right arm” because she saw
a band-aid on that arm. Id. ¶ 7. Ms. Binder attests to Petitioner’s ongoing
right shoulder limitations. Id. ¶¶ 8-9.
• Ex. 8 ¶ 6, an affidavit from Petitioner’s daughter, Kimberly Powers, noting
that Petitioner “told her that she had gotten a tetanus shot in her right arm
and that her arm was sore.” Ms. Powers “remember[s] seeing [Petitioner’s]
right arm and [she] could see that the band aid at the vaccination site was
kind of silly[.] It was colorful and was obviously a kid’s band-aid.” Id. Ms.
Powers describes functional limitations she observed in Petitioner’s right
arm, including with bathing, eating, and typing – as Petitioner is right-hand
dominant. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9-11.
6

Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/11/24 Page 7 of 8
The above evidence preponderantly supports the conclusion that Petitioner’s
November 19, 2021 Tdap vaccine was likely administered in her right shoulder, as
alleged. The record of Petitioner’s November 21, 2021 urgent care follow-up visit noting
right shoulder pain and stiffness requiring work modifications for her right shoulder (Ex. 2
at 50-52), is particularly persuasive. This record is from only two days post vaccination
and is the most contemporaneous record other than the vaccine administration record
itself. While it does also reference left shoulder issues, overall, the thrust of the documents
from this visit are consistent with a primarily right-side complaint.
Petitioner’s right shoulder administration arguments are further corroborated by
Petitioner’s November 27, 2021 follow-up visit (six days later) (Ex. 2 at 46), and visits
thereafter, wherein Petitioner consistently reports that her right shoulder pain began the
night of the subject Tdap vaccination in that arm. And as the above-referenced medical
records further establish, when seeking medical treatment on every subsequent occasion,
Petitioner consistently reported right shoulder pain attributable to her Tdap vaccination.
See, e.g., Ex. 1 at 72; Ex. 2 at 19-20, 40; Ex. 3 at 24; Ex. 4 at 7-8, 15, 19; Ex. 5 at 76.
I acknowledge that the vaccine administration record itself memorializes a different
site of the administration of Petitioner’s Tdap vaccine. Ex. 2 at 55. But the record is an
automated, computer-generated, electronic entry. See id. It is not unusual for the
information regarding situs of vaccination set forth in this kind of document to be
incorrect.5 In many instances, the information regarding situs has been recorded prior to
vaccination and is not subsequently corrected, even if the vaccine is then administered in
the opposing arm.6 Thus, although such records are unquestionably the first-generated
documents bearing on the issue of site, and merit some weight as a result, they are not
per se reliable simply because they come first. In fact, I have previously determined that
the very nature of vaccination record creation provides some basis for not accepting them
as the evidence worthy of highest probative weight. See, e.g., Rizvi v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 21-881V, 2022 WL 2284311, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2022).
More so, I routinely give greater weight to vaccination records that are handwritten –
5 See, e.g., Arnold v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1038V 2021 WL 2908519, at *4 (Fed. CL.
Spec. Mstr. June 9, 2021); Syed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1364V, 2021 WL 2229829, at
*4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 28, 2021); Ruddy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 19-1998V, 2021 WL
1291777, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 2021); Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No 14-0811V,
2020 WL 4919777, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2018 WL 6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2018).
6 In a recent ruling by another special master, the pharmacist who had administered the relevant vaccination
actually testified that she inputs “left deltoid” into the computer system as a matter of course, without
confirming the actual site of vaccination, based upon the assumption that most vaccinees are right-handed.
Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1977V, 2021 WL 1940435, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 19, 2021).
7

Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 18 Filed 06/11/24 Page 8 of 8
meaning those that require specific action on the part of the vaccine administrator, as
opposed to those that are automatically generated by a computerized system. See, e.g.,
Rizvi, 2022 WL 2284311, at *5; Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V,
2020 WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020).
The vaccine administration form at issue in this case is an automated entry in a
computerized system. It is the only evidence in this case that contradicts Petitioner’s
assertion and supports a finding of left arm situs. Given the general unreliability of an
automated vaccination record, and when weighed against Petitioner’s clear, consistent,
and close-in-time reports of right shoulder pain following her receipt of a Tdap vaccine in
that arm, I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner received her November
19, 2021 Tdap vaccine in her right arm. To rule otherwise, the overall record would need
to contain more instances in which the counter situs was suggested or supported.
V. Scheduling Order
Respondent shall file, by no later than Wednesday, May 22, 2024, a status
report concerning how he intends to proceed. At a minimum, the status report shall
indicate whether he is willing to engage in tentative discussions regarding settlement or
proffer or is opposed to negotiating at this time. In the event Respondent wishes to file a
Rule 4(c) report, he may propose a date for filing it, but shall indicate his position on
entering into negotiations regardless of whether he wishes to file a Rule 4(c) report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00848-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/22/2024) regarding 21 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 28 Filed 08/27/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-848V
BARBARA POWERS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 22, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On June 7, 2023, Barbara Powers (“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 a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on November 19, 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 May 8, 2024, I issued a fact ruling finding that Petitioner received the subject
Tdap vaccination in her right arm, as alleged. ECF No. 15.
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-00848-UNJ Document 28 Filed 08/27/24 Page 2 of 2
On July 19, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 2,
ECF No. 19. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner suffered SIRVA as
defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 7. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner
“has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 8.
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-00848-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-16
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/15/2024) regarding 24 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 29 Filed 09/16/24 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-848V
BARBARA POWERS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 15, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On June 7, 2023, Barbara Powers 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”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccination administered to her on November 19, 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.
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-00848-UNJ Document 29 Filed 09/16/24 Page 2 of 5
On July 22, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 21. O n August 15, 2024, Respondent filed a
Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$70,000.00 in pain and suffering. Proffer at 2, ECF No. 23. 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 $70,000.00 for pain and suffering, in the form of a check payable
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-00848-UNJ Document 29 Filed 09/16/24 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
BARBARA POWERS,
Petitioner,
No. 23-848V (ECF)
v.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On June 7, 2023, Barbara Powers (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2018) (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine
administered on November 19, 2021. ECF No. 1 (Petition) at 1.
On May 8, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued Findings of Fact concluding that
petitioner received the vaccine in her right shoulder. ECF No. 15 at 2.
On May 23, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a
Rule 4(c) Report indicating that, in light of the fact ruling, he would not contest that petitioner
suffered a SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 19.1
On July 22, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that
petitioner is entitled to compensation. ECF No. 21.
1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. However,
respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f), to seek review of the Chief
Special Master’s May 8, 2024 fact ruling. This right accrues following the issuance of a
Decision on Damages.

Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 29 Filed 09/16/24 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$70,000.00 in damages, consisting of pain and suffering, which represents all elements of
compensation to which petitioner would be 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 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: a lump sum payment of $70,000.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.2
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C.SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant 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 medical
expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00848-UNJ Document 29 Filed 09/16/24 Page 5 of 5
/s/ Naseem Kourosh
NASEEM KOUROSH
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
(202) 305-1159
Naseem.Kourosh@usdoj.gov
DATED: August 15, 2024
3