VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00941
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00941
Petitioner: Lisa Bakke
Filed: 2023-06-23
Decided: 2025-09-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-12-04
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 35513

AI-assisted case summary:
On June 23, 2023, Lisa Bakke filed a petition alleging a left shoulder SIRVA after an influenza vaccination on December 4, 2020. The public proffer identified her as a competent adult. Early public filings used initials because the factual ruling was redacted before later public release.

Ms. Bakke reported immediate intense shoulder pain after the shot. She did not seek formal treatment until February 2021, when she told her primary-care physician that left shoulder pain and range-of-motion trouble had persisted since the flu shot. A steroid injection gave limited relief. By March 2021, her PCP documented SIRVA and frozen shoulder, and Ms. Bakke reported worsening stiffness that interfered with sleep, washing her hair, doing dishes, typing, and ordinary movement. Physical therapy in April 2021 recorded pain up to 7 out of 10, limited motion, guarding, tenderness, and difficulty with activities such as hair care, kayaking, and dishes.

Respondent initially contested the six-month severity requirement because formal treatment ended in spring 2021 and there was a long gap before later reports. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran credited Ms. Bakke's explanation that anxiety, other medical concerns, and self-management contributed to the gap, while the April therapy findings and expected ongoing treatment supported symptoms beyond six months. Later records described adaptation rather than complete recovery, including ongoing cold-weather stiffness, pinching, and difficulty with household tasks and kayaking.

After fact findings and an entitlement ruling, the parties resolved damages. On September 23, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded $35,513.83, consisting of $35,000.00 for pain and suffering and $513.83 for unreimbursed expenses. Ms. Bakke was represented by Jonathan Joseph Svitak of Shannon Law Group, P.C.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, December 4, 2020, competent adult, alleged left SIRVA. COMPENSATED after respondent initially contested six-month severity but later conceded entitlement after fact findings. Key evidence: immediate intense shoulder pain, February 2021 PCP report of pain and ROM trouble since flu shot, steroid injection, March 2021 PCP diagnosis of SIRVA/frozen shoulder, April 2021 PT findings with pain 7/10 and limited ROM, May 2021 PT discharge at petitioner's request, and October 2022 declaration/message explaining ongoing cold-weather stiffness and adaptation despite treatment gap. Award: $35,000 pain/suffering plus $513.83 unreimbursed expenses, total $35,513.83. Chief Special Master Corcoran fact findings April 30, 2025, entitlement August 4, 2025, damages September 23, 2025. Attorney Jonathan Svitak; respondent Ryan Pyles.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00941-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-31
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/30/2025) regarding 37 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-941V
L.B., Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 30, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Elizabeth Kyla Abramson, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On June 23, 2023, L.B. 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 a Table claim – that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on December
4, 2020. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters (the “SPU”).
A disputed fact issue has arisen regarding whether Petitioner’s injury meets the
Act’s severity requirement. For the reasons discussed below, I find it more likely than not
that Petitioner can establish this claim element.
1 When this Ruling was originally filed, I advised Petitioner of my intent 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). In accordance with
Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This Ruling is being posted
with the granted redactions. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have
been made. This Ruling will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for
redaction.
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-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 2 of 9
I. Relevant Procedural History
In June 2024, Respondent stated he had completed the medical review of this
matter and would defend the claim. ECF No. 28. Respondent thereafter filed a Rule 4(c)
Report (ECF No. 32), contending that while Petitioner meets the criteria for a Table
SIRVA, she has not established that she suffered her alleged SIRVA for more than six
months post-vaccination. Id. at 8. The record shows that Petitioner last received treatment
for her left shoulder approximately four and a half months post vaccination (in April 2021),
and her last contact with her treater regarding her injury was in May 2021. Id. (citing Ex.
3 at 5-6, 32; Ex. 5 at 6-7; Ex. 6 at 384, 406-08). Petitioner then had a 17-month gap in
care during which she reported numerous other medical issues but no shoulder
symptoms. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 9 at 22-26, 33-36, 52-61, 75-76, 87-94).
Petitioner thereafter filed medical literature exhibits in support of her ability to
satisfy the six-month severity requirement, along with a “summary of submitted evidence”
addressing this issue. ECF No. 34; ECF No. 35 at 2-6. Despite such newly filed evidence,
Respondent expressed his intention to continue defending this matter on severity
grounds. ECF No. 36. The issue of severity is thus ripe for consideration.
II. Relevant Authority
Pursuant to Section 13(a)(1)(A) of the Vaccine Act, 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 & 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.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 3 of 9
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, or varied, 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).
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 & 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-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 4 of 9
III. Finding of Fact Regarding Severity
I make this finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed, and in particular the following:3
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her left deltoid on December 4, 2020.
Exs. 12, 13.
• On February 2, 2021 (60 days post vaccination), Petitioner had a
telemedicine visit with a nurse practitioner for left shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 51-
52. She reported that she received “the flu shot on Dec. [sic] 4th in the left
shoulder” and “[h]as been having pain and trouble with range of motion
[(“ROM”)] ever since.” Id. at 52. She noted it had been almost two months
of pain. Id. The treater recommended Petitioner appear for an in-person
treatment visit. Id. at 54.
• That same day, Petitioner saw another nurse practitioner, and again
reported that she had received a “flu vaccine 12/4” and “immediately post-
vaccine she felt intense upper arm/shoulder pain” that has not subsided.
Ex. 2 at 58. Petitioner described limited ROM, stiffness, soreness/aching,
and rated her pain at a 5-10/10 (exacerbated by movement). Id. She noted
that heat/ice, compression, and NSAIDs had not provided relief. Id. An
examination showed mild inflammation, tenderness, and limited ROM of the
left shoulder. Id. at 60. Petitioner was referred to an orthopedist and for an
x-ray (which was normal). Id.; Ex. 7 at 8.
• Petitioner visited an orthopedist on February 10, 2021, stating that she
received the flu shot “about 2 months ago” and her left shoulder has been
“giving her a bit of a frozen shoulder.” Ex. 5 at 6. An examination revealed
full ROM, pain with movement, and full strength. Id. The orthopedist
assessed Petitioner with “left shoulder adhesive capsulitis after her flu shot.”
Id. Petitioner received a steroid injection in the left shoulder. Id.
• The next day, Petitioner called her orthopedist reporting that her left
shoulder initially “felt good” following her steroid injection but she then had
a “lot of pain and stiffness” to the point that she could not sleep. Ex. 5 at 5.
The orthopedist reassured her this was normal. Id.
3 While I have reviewed all the evidence filed to-date in this case, only evidence related to severity will be
discussed herein, though other facts may be provided as necessary.
4

Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 5 of 9
• On March 15, 2021, Petitioner had a telemedicine visit with her primary care
provider (“PCP”) and noted her history of “SIRVA/frozen shoulder due to flu
shot on 12/4/20.” Ex. 6 at 382. Petitioner reported that her left arm was
“totally stiff” with pain the day after she received her steroid injection, but
she then experienced “some improvement.” Id. However, she again was
experiencing soreness, “more pain[,] and stiffness[,]” that impacted her
ability to sleep. Id. The PCP assessed Petitioner with adhesive capsulitis
“s/p shoulder steroid injection with minimal improvement.” Id. at 384. The
PCP referred Petitioner to physical therapy (“PT”), and told her that “she
does have a long course of PT ahead of her to resolve this pain.” Id.
• In a message to her PCP on March 17, 2021 (seemingly in connection with
her ability to work), Petitioner described shoulder stiffness that impacts her
ability to perform activities of daily living (“ADLs”), including with sleeping,
washing her hair and dishes, and with typing at work. Ex. 6 at 389. She
wrote that she was “concerned about the long-term, intensive recovery this
will take” to improve her symptoms. Id. She described her pain as “always
an ache” with a pinching and burning sensation. Id. Petitioner stated she
“can feel the sensation of ‘frozen’ tissue.” Id.
• Petitioner had an initial PT evaluation on April 14, 2021, and complained of
shoulder pain that started on “Dec. 4, 2020 SIRVA.” Ex. 3 at 2. Petitioner
reported that a steroid injection had “provided some relief.” Id. She also
noted that her pain “feels episodic, linked to inflammation,” and that she
“tries baths with Epsom salts, [and] wrapping [her] arm” but still has pain
and tightness in the left shoulder into the neck. Id. Petitioner’s goals
included to “wash [her] hair without it hurting, return to kayaking, [and] do
[the] dishes.” Id. She rated her current pain at a 7/10. Id. Petitioner exhibited
limited ROM, guarding, and stiffness upon examination but the “[e]xam
findings [were] limited due to [Petitioner’s] anxiety surrounding medical
treatment.” Id. at 3. The treater recommended eight weeks of PT (through
mid-June 2021) and noted that Petitioner had “a negative experience with
[PT] in the past which may impact [her] progress[.]” Id. at 3-4.
• During Petitioner’s second PT visit on April 20, 2021, she reported “some
relief” after her last session. Ex. 3 at 5. Petitioner exhibited diminished active
ROM in the left shoulder compared to the right, plus pain with extension. Id.
The treater’s assessment noted that Petitioner had a “good initial response
to PT but did have a lot of difficulty with scapular motor control. She had
some tenderness with manual therapy, but did get some relief after.” Id. at
5

Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 6 of 9
6. The treater also noted that “internal rotation flared up the shoulder even
after [the treater and Petitioner] tried adjusting form, so we ended [the]
session[.]” Id. Petitioner did not return for additional shoulder treatment
thereafter.
• On May 9, 2021, Petitioner emailed her PCP inquiring about receiving the
COVID-19 vaccine in her thigh instead of “into [her] flu-shot damaged left
shoulder.” Ex. 6 at 407.
• Petitioner was discharged from PT on May 26, 2021, after attending only
two sessions. Ex. 3 at 32. The record of discharge states that it occurred at
Petitioner’s request, as “she has other medical concerns that she would like
to take priority at this time.” Id.
• Petitioner thereafter attended several appointments for unrelated ailments
over a lengthy period of time, but she did not report left shoulder symptoms
at any of these visits. See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 416-21 (a July 5, 2021 emergency
care visit for a bladder infection); Ex. 6 at 432-38, 454-55 (a December 5,
2021 urgent care visit for facial cellulitis); Ex. 9 at 22-26 (a June 24, 2022
telemedicine “chat” with a physicians’ assistant for a concern regarding
exposure to scabies); Ex. 9 at 33-36 (a June 28, 2022 message to her PCP
regarding skin concerns and several other systemic symptoms); Ex. 9 at
52-61, 65-66 (July 11, 2022 PCP and dermatology visits for skin concerns);
Ex. 9 at 75-82 (an August 2, 2022 infectious disease telemedicine visit); Ex.
9 at 87-101 (a September 26, 2022 gynecology visit and uterine biopsy).
• The next record of any shoulder complaints relating to the alleged SIRVA
comes from October 25, 2022 - over 17 months since her last visit for left
shoulder pain. At this time, Petitioner sent a message to her PCP stating
that she has “learned to adapt and adjust to compensate for the [SIRVA]
but there are times, especially during colder weather, [she] experience[s]
increased stiffness and pinching.” Ex. 9 at 106. She described difficulties
with vacuuming, changing bedding, hair washing, sleeping, and kayaking.
Id. Another physician in her PCP’s office responded noting “it sounds like
[Petitioner’s] injury was almost 2 years ago” so the treater felt she needed
“to consider that other possible causes, like a rotator cuff strain, maybe
playing a role.” Id. The physician recommended an office visit. Id. Petitioner
did not seek any additional shoulder-related care thereafter.
6

Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 7 of 9
• In her declaration, authored on October 13, 2023, Petitioner generally
attests that she “sustained injuries that lasted beyond 6 months after
administration of the vaccine.” Ex. 11 ¶ 3. According to Petitioner, “[m]ost
treatment for [her] shoulder was self-administered because [she has] a very
problematic relationship with the medical field following several traumatic
incidents throughout [her] life[.]” Id. ¶ 4. She therefore experienced “intense
anxiety” when she visits doctors. Id. She attested to ongoing “twinges” in
her left shoulder, and that she has not returned to kayaking. Id. ¶ 5.
• While not a contemporaneous medical record or witness declaration, as
noted above, counsel for Petitioner filed a status report containing a
“summary of submitted evidence” regarding severity. ECF No. 35. In it,
counsel stated that “[s]ince the initiation of Petitioner’s claim, [she] was
diagnosed with breast cancer and has been undergoing aggressive cancer
therapy.” Id. at 2. Counsel did not cite to medical records to corroborate this
allegation, however, or provide a timeline of this treatment with more
specificity.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act 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). To satisfy the six-month requirement, “[a] potential petitioner must do
something more than merely submit a petition and an affidavit parroting the words of the
statute.” Faup v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-87V, 2015 WL 443802, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 13, 2015). Rather, a petitioner is required to “submit supporting
documentation which reasonably demonstrates that the alleged injury or its sequelae
lasted more than six months[.]” Id.
Additionally, “the 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 & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1013, 2019 WL 978825, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (finding that
a petitioner suffered from residual symptoms that due to their mild nature did not require
medical care and thus that “a discharge from medical care does not necessarily indicate
there are no residual effects”). In another SPU case, where a petitioner’s last treatment
was at five months and nine days, the petitioner was found to meet the six-month
7

Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 8 of 9
requirement. Schafer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0593V, 2019 WL 5849524
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 28, 2019). In that case, based on the petitioner’s symptomology
and progression, the special master noted that it was unlikely “that petitioner’s shoulder
symptoms would have resolved within [the next] 22 days.” Id. at *7.
In this case, there appears to be no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine
on December 4, 2020, and that the onset of her post-vaccination shoulder symptoms
occurred within 48 hours of the subject vaccination. ECF No. 32 at 8. She therefore must
demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her residual symptoms continued for more
than six months thereafter from onset, or through June 4, 2021. See, e.g., Herren, 2014
WL 3889070, at *3.
The records discussed above establish that on April 20, 2021 (merely 45 days shy
of the severity “cut-off”), Petitioner exhibited diminished active ROM in the left shoulder
compared to the right, difficulty with scapular motor control, tenderness with manual
therapy, and a flare up of pain with internal rotation to the point that Petitioner’s physical
therapist had to end the session. Ex. 3 at 5-6. More so, just six days prior to this visit (at
her first PT visit on April 14th), Petitioner rated her pain at a 7/10. Id. at 2. Accordingly,
additional PT was recommended to address these ongoing symptoms, for eight weeks or
through mid-June 2021 (at the earliest). Id. at 3-4.
These record notations, paired with a proposed continued treatment course,
provide evidence that Petitioner’s injury was at this point likely ongoing, and that her
treating physician did not predict that the injury was likely to resolve soon thereafter – or
even within the next month and a half. See, e.g., Schafer, 2019 WL 5849524, at *7.
I also do not construe Petitioner’s cessation of treatment after April 2021 as
evidence that her injury had resolved by that time. Rather, Petitioner’s treatment
cessation has a reasonable explanation (that she had anxiety around medical encounters
and also wanted to focus on other medical concerns at that time). See Ex. 3 at 3-4 (an
April 14, 2021 PT note that Petitioner had “a negative experience with [PT] in the past
which may impact [her] progress[.]”); Ex. 3 at 32 (a May 26, 2021 discharge note that
Petitioner wanted to discontinue PT to make other medical concerns a “priority”); see also
Ex. 11 ¶ 4 (stating she has a “very problematic relationship with the medical field following
several traumatic incidents” and experienced “intense anxiety” when she visits doctors;
thus most of her treatment was self-performed). While Petitioner did obtain treatment
during the subsequent lengthy gap for non-shoulder related issues, I do not conclude
from this that her alleged SIRVA had likely resolved fully by early June.
Compared to other SIRVA injuries, however, Petitioner’s left shoulder pain and
limited ROM was not especially severe, even at the time she did obtain treatment. And
8

Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/31/25 Page 9 of 9
significantly, she did not seek follow up care after April 2021 for more than a year and a
half. All of this speaks to the obvious mildness of Petitioner’s symptoms4 – but that is a
matter that goes to the ultimate quantum of damages to be paid, rather than whether the
claim’s temporal severity has been established.
IV. Scheduling Order
Respondent shall file, by no later than Friday, May 30, 2025, a status report
concerning how he intends to proceed, including, if appropriate, whether he would like to
file an amended Rule 4(c) report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 For this reason, Petitioner should not expect to receive any damages for treatment obtained after the
lengthy gap, and should also anticipate a very modest pain and suffering award.
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00941-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/04/2025) regarding 48 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/04/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-941V
LISA BAKKE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 4, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Elizabeth Kyla Abramson, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On June 23, 2023, Lisa Bakke (“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 December 4, 2020. 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 April 30, 2025, I issued a fact ruling finding that Petitioner suffered the residual
effects of her injury for at least six months post vaccination, as alleged. ECF No. 37.
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-00941-UNJ Document 50 Filed 09/04/25 Page 2 of 2
On August 1, 2025, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
states that in light of my Fact Ruling, he will not continue to defend this matter on other
grounds and requests a ruling on the record regarding Petitioner’s entitlement to
compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 2, ECF No. 47. Specifically, Respondent
indicated that Petitioner has “otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury
Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation [] for SIRVA.” Id. Respondent “does
not dispute that [P]etitioner 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

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00941-3
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-28
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/23/2025) regarding 55 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 59 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-941V
LISA BAKKE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 23, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Elizabeth Kyla Abramson, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On June 23, 2023, Lisa Bakke 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 December 4, 2020. 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 August 4, 2025, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 48. On September 23, 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-00941-UNJ Document 59 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 5
$35,000.00 in pain and suffering and $513.83 in past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer
at 2, ECF No. 53. 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 $35,513.83 for pain and suffering and 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-00941-UNJ Document 59 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
LISA BAKKE,
Petitioner,
Case No. 23-941V (ECF)
v. CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER
CORCORAN
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
AMENDED PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION 1
I. Procedural History
On June 23, 2023, Lisa Bakke (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Pet.”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1
to -34 (“the Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine that was administered on December 4, 2020, she suffered a left shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Pet. at 1; Petitioner’s Exhibit
(“Ex.”) 1 at 5-6; Ex. 12 at 1-4.
On September 9, 2024, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report defending this case
on the six-month severity requirement. ECF No. 32 at 8-9. On April 30, 2025, the Court
issued its Findings of Fact determining that petitioner satisfied the six-month severity
1 This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to
address after the Damages Decision is issued.

Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 59 Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 5
requirement. ECF No. 37 at 7-9. On August 1, 2025, respondent filed an Amended Rule
4(c) Report, stating that respondent would not defend the case further and requesting that
the Court issue its entitlement decision. ECF No. 47 at 7-9. On August 4, 2025, the
Court issued its Ruling on Entitlement. ECF Doc. 48.2
II. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded the following:
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $35,000.00 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 she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should
be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $513.83. 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.
2 This proffer is subject to respondent’s right to appeal the Court’s Findings of Fact and
Ruling on Entitlement.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00941-UNJ Document 59 Filed 10/28/25 Page 5 of 5
III. Form of the Award/Recommended Payment
The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment as described below, and request that the Chief Special
Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:
A lump sum payment of $35,513.83, to be paid through an ACH deposit to
petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner, Lisa
Bakke.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Proof of guardianship is not required in this case.
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
VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR.
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Mark K. Hellie
MARK K. HELLIE
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
T: (202) 616-4208
E: mark.hellie@usdoj.gov
DATED: September 19, 2025
3