VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01584 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01584 Petitioner: Jennifer Sigan Filed: 2023-09-14 Decided: 2025-08-04 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2022-10-18 Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 60771.15 AI-assisted case summary: On September 14, 2023, Jennifer Sigan filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered in her left deltoid on October 18, 2022 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent disputed one Table element, arguing that the medical records did not show symptoms limited to the vaccinated shoulder because two records described left arm pain radiating from the shoulder toward the hand. The medical record, however, repeatedly tied the injury to the left shoulder. Ten days after vaccination, Ms. Sigan reported limited left arm pain radiating from the shoulder, weak grip, decreased range of motion, tenderness, and pain with overhead extension; she was assessed with left arm pain and adverse effect of vaccine and prescribed an oral steroid and home exercises. On January 4, 2023, a neurologist recorded that she started losing mobility and having severe left-shoulder pain two days after vaccination, denied numbness and tingling, and was referred for EMG and physical therapy. On January 13, an orthopedist noted stiff, sharp lateral shoulder pain, sleep difficulty, tenderness, decreased internal range of motion, positive impingement signs, and gave a steroid injection. She began physical therapy on January 20 and later MRI showed rotator cuff tendinosis without tear and a SLAP tear. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found on June 12, 2025 that Ms. Sigan's symptoms were more likely than not limited to the left shoulder for Table purposes. The parties then resolved damages by stipulation, and on August 4, 2025, he awarded $60,771.15 as a lump sum. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine October 18, 2022 causing left SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated; onset credited two days post-vaccination. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED after respondent challenged vaccinated-shoulder limitation. Evidence: Oct. 28 left shoulder/arm pain, weak grip, decreased ROM, tenderness, oral steroid/home exercises; Jan. 4 neurology history of severe left-shoulder pain and lost mobility two days after vaccine; Jan. 13 ortho exam with impingement signs and steroid injection; PT; MRI rotator cuff tendinosis and SLAP tear. Award $60,771.15 lump sum by stipulation. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition September 14, 2023; entitlement June 12, 2025; damages August 4, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01584-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-23 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/12/2025) 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-01584-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/23/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1584V JENNIFER SIGAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 12, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. FACT RULING1 On September 14, 2023, Jennifer Sigan (“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”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on October 18, 2022. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). A dispute has arisen between the parties regarding whether Petitioner’s post- vaccination symptoms were limited to the shoulder in which the subject flu vaccine was administered. For the reasons discussed below, I find it more likely than not that Petitioner’s post-vaccination symptoms were limited to her left shoulder, as alleged. 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-01584-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/23/25 Page 2 of 7 I. Relevant Procedural History Following initiation of the instant claim, the parties attempted to informally resolve damages but were ultimately unsuccessful. ECF Nos. 15-6, 18-19. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report in defense of this case on September 27, 2024. Respondent’s Report, ECF No. 20. In it, he made one argument against Petitioner’s ability to establish a Table SIRVA claim: that her medical records do not support the conclusion that her post- vaccination symptoms were limited to the vaccinated shoulder. Id. at 6. Specifically, Petitioner complained of left arm pain radiating from her shoulder down to her hand on two occasions. Id. (citing Ex. 2 at 20; Ex. 3 at 6). This issue is now ripe for consideration. 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). “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. And, the Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id. Indeed, 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 2 Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/23/25 Page 3 of 7 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 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). III. Relevant Factual Evidence I make this finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical records, declarations, and additional evidence filed, and in particular the following:3 • Petitioner received the subject vaccine in her left deltoid on October 18, 2022. Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 2 at 23. • Ten days later (October 28, 2022), Petitioner saw a treater at her primary care provider (“PCP”)’s office complaining of a “poss [sic] flu shot injury 10/18/2022” that involved “limited left arm pain radiate [sic] from shoulder all the way to hand . . . .” Ex. 2 at 20. Petitioner noted that she “fe[lt] the pain in upper arm, pain with extension overhead[,] and ha[d] a weak grip.” Id. An examination showed decreased range of motion (“ROM”), tenderness of the left bursa, and pain with extension above a 45-degree angle. Id. She was assessed with left arm pain and an “adverse effect of vaccine.” Id. Petitioner was prescribed an oral steroid and was instructed on home exercises that would improve her left shoulder symptoms. Id. at 21. • Petitioner followed up with her PCP on November 22, 2022. Ex. 2 at 14. During Petitioner’s blood pressure reading, the PCP noted that her “[blood pressure elevated today in L [sic] arm but this is sore arm after receiving flu 3 While I have reviewed all the evidence filed to-date in this case, only evidence related to whether Petitioner’s symptoms were limited to the vaccination shoulder will be discussed herein, though other facts may be provided as necessary. 3 Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/23/25 Page 4 of 7 shot.” Id. The PCP’s assessment included “[o]ther specified injuries of shoulder and upper arm,” and she was referred to a neurologist for a “[p]ossible SIRVA after flu shot[.]” Id. at 16, 19. • Accordingly, Petitioner saw a neurologist for “evaluation of left shoulder pain and possible SIRVA” on January 4, 2023. Ex. 3 at 6. Petitioner reported she received a flu vaccine on October 18, 2022, and “2 days after the vaccination she started to lose mobility of her left upper extremity and having severe pain with movement on left shoulder.” Id. She also noted that she “[c]urrently [] continued to have left shoulder pain that would radiate from the top of her the [sic] shoulder down[;] she described pain as a throbbing.” Id. Petitioner reported decreased ROM and difficulty lifting her arm, but she “denie[d] any numbness, tingling.” Id. An examination revealed decreased ROM and Petitioner could not lift her arm greater than 45- degrees. Id. at 7. Petitioner was assessed with “pain in left shoulder.” Id. The neurologist recommended an EMG (which Petitioner did not ultimately receive (Respondent’s Report at 3, n.2)) and physical therapy (“PT”). Id. • On January 13, 2023, Petitioner saw an orthopedist for “left shoulder pain” that “began on 10/18/22 after [she] received a flu shot.” Ex. 4 at 16. Petitioner “describe[d] a stiff, sharp pain located on the lateral side of shoulder.” Id. She also noted worsening pain with all movement and “issues sleeping due to the shoulder pain.” Id. Upon examination, Petitioner exhibited tenderness of the bicipital groove of her left shoulder, decreased internal ROM, and positive impingement signs. Id. An x-ray of the left shoulder was consistent with left shoulder pain; the treater’s impression was “pain in left shoulder” that was “distributed on the left shoulder joint.” Id. at 17. Petitioner received a steroid injection in the left shoulder. Id. • Petitioner began PT for “pain in left shoulder” on January 20, 2023. Ex. 4 at 69. Her primary complaint was “L [sic] shoulder pain” and she described the location of pain as the “L [sic] shoulder.” Id. She linked the onset of her pain to the subject flu vaccination. Id. An examination of the left shoulder showed limited ROM and diminished strength. Id. at 70. Petitioner attended additional PT thereafter to regain left shoulder function and mobility. See id. at 43-69. • Petitioner continued to receive ongoing orthopedic and PT care for her left shoulder through mid-2023, including undergoing an MRI of the left shoulder on May 24, 2023. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 22-28. The MRI showed rotator cuff tendinosis without tear, a SLAP tear of the posterior superior 4 Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/23/25 Page 5 of 7 labrum, mild soft tissue edema that “can be seen in the clinical setting of adhesive capsulitis,” and mild arthrosis of the acromioclavicular (“AC”) joint. Id. at 28. • No other medical record or affidavit/witness declaration evidence regarding whether Petitioner’s pain was limited to her left shoulder has been filed. IV. Finding of Fact Regarding Symptoms Limited to Vaccinated Shoulder The third QAI requirement for a Table SIRVA requires a petitioner’s pain and reduced range of motion to be “limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). Respondent contests Petitioner’s satisfaction of this element. Respondent’s Report at 6. But I find that there is a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner’s pain was likely limited to her left shoulder. First, Petitioner’s records consistently reflect left shoulder pain and diminished ROM, which are consistent with other SIRVA cases. Petitioner’s diagnostic procedures were also limited to her left shoulder, and she received treatment for left shoulder pain and limited ROM specifically. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 16, 22-28, 69. Second, although there are two stray references to pain extending outside the vaccinated shoulder, the totality of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner’s pain was not only limited to her left shoulder, but originated from the shoulder. Compare Ex. 2 at 20 (an October 28, 2022 report of “limited left arm pain radiate [sic] from shoulder all the way to hand . . . .”), and Ex. 3 at 6 (a January 4, 2023 report of “left shoulder pain that would radiate from the top of her the [sic] shoulder down”); with Ex. 4 at 16 (a January 13, 2023 report of left shoulder pain “located on the lateral side of shoulder.”), and id. at 69 (a January 20, 2023 report of the location of pain as the “L [sic] shoulder.”). In the Program, special masters have found that SIRVA claims featuring complaints of pain primarily occurring in the shoulder are valid under the Table, even if there are additional allegations of pain extending to adjacent parts of the body. K.P. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-65V, 2022 WL 3226776, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 25, 2022) (holding that “claims involving musculoskeletal pain primarily occurring in the shoulder are valid under the Table even if there are additional allegations of pain extending to adjacent parts of the body”). The mere fact that a claimant has raised complaints of pain elsewhere physically does not automatically disqualify the claim as a SIRVA. Indeed, the gravamen of the third QAI criterion is intended to “guard against compensating claims involving patterns of pain 5 Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/23/25 Page 6 of 7 or reduced [ROM] indicative of a contributing etiology beyond the confines of a musculoskeletal injury to the affected shoulder.” Grossmann v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0013V, 2022 WL 779666, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 15, 2022) (emphasis added); Werning v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0267V, 2020 WL 5051154, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 27, 2020) (finding that a petitioner satisfied the third SIRVA QAI criterion where there was a complaint of radiating pain, but the petitioner was “diagnosed and treated solely for pain and limited range of motion to her right shoulder”); Cross v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1958V, 2023 WL 120783, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 6, 2023) (finding that “despite the notations of pain extending beyond the shoulder, Petitioner’s injury is consistent with the definition of SIRVA and there is not preponderant evidence of another etiology”). Resolution of this QAI, like all elements of a Table claim, involves a preponderant balancing of proof – and if that balancing suggests primarily shoulder concerns, that is enough. Here, Petitioner in some isolated circumstances reported instances of pain extending beyond the shoulder, but her injury and diagnoses (specific to shoulder joint pathology) were otherwise consistent with SIRVA, and she was treated accordingly. See, e.g., Durham v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1899V, 2023 WL 3196229, at *11- 13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 7, 2023) (finding "this is not a case where the medical records reflect that the symptoms beyond the confines of the shoulder are incidental to what was otherwise clearly treated as a shoulder injury," as the petitioner showed prominent symptoms of radiculopathy/numbness into the hand and neck, there ultimately was not any confirmed final diagnosis of a shoulder joint pathology, and a cervical etiology was deemed more likely by physicians). The evidence supporting SIRVA-related symptoms of shoulder pain and limited ROM here outweighs the incidental complaints of throbbing pain stemming from the shoulder into the upper extremity (that ultimately did not receive a separate diagnosis). Petitioner has therefore established this QAI criterion. Conclusion and Scheduling Order I encourage the parties to promptly attempt an informal resolution of this claim before expending any further litigative resources on the case. If at any time informal resolution (of either settlement or proffer) appears unlikely, given that the claim has been pending in SPU for over one year (having been assigned in December 2023), the parties should propose a method for moving forward, i.e., with a proposed briefing schedule or otherwise stating how they wish to proceed. Accordingly, by no later than Monday, July 28, 2025, the parties shall file a joint status report confirming the date on which Petitioner conveyed, or intends to convey, a reasonable settlement demand and supporting documentation for Respondent’s 6 Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 24 Filed 07/23/25 Page 7 of 7 consideration. If applicable, the status report may also state whether Respondent wishes to file an amended Rule 4(c) report and stating how much time is needed to submit said report. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01584-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-09-04 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/04/2025) regarding 28 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/04/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1584V JENNIFER SIGAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: August 4, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On September 14, 2023, Jennifer Sigan filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On October 18, 2022, Petitioner received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, a vaccine contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). Petitioner alleges that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as defined in the Table; she further alleges that the flu vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury, and that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. 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-01584-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/04/25 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on August 4, 2025, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $60,771.15 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id. I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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-01584-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/04/25 Page 3 of 7 Vinesign Document ID: 6F1F5BE3-EDC1-4161-BCC9-EE06EF0F6F6F IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS JENNIFER SIGAN. Petitioner, No. 23-1584V Chief Special Master Corcoran V. ECP SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: 1. Jennifer Sigan ("petitioner'') filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt of an influenza (''flu") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § I00.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 18, 2022. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA j within the time period set forth in the Table. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged injury for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner's behalf as a result of the alleged injury. The signed document can be validated at https://app.vinesign.comNerify Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/04/25 Page 4 of 7 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that petitioner's current condition is a sequela of a vaccjne-related injury. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable after an entry ofj udgment reflecting a decision consistent with the terms of this Stipulation. and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the folJowing vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum payment of$60,771.1S 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 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 9. As soon as practicable after the entry ofj udgment on entitlement in this case, and after petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2t(a)(l), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this petition. 10. Petitioner and petitioner's attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa• l 5(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX oft he Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis. 2 Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/04/25 Page 5 of 7 11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorney's fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of4 2 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa•15(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner's individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements. judgments, claims. damages. loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or natw-e) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U .S.C. § 300aa-l 0 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on October 18, 2022, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about September 14, 2023, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 23-1584V. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry ofj udgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalfo f either or both of the parties. 3 Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/04/25 Page 6 of 7 15. Ift he special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the tenns of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in confonnity with a decision that is in complete confonnity with the tenns of this Stipulation, then the parties' settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amend~ except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature oft he injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner's current disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. I 8. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shaH apply equally to petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION/ 4 Case 1:23-vv-01584-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/04/25 Page 7 of 7 Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: JENNIFER SIOAN AITORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: c J ~ r .....JA.JtJ~'w--Qec, 1h1d4C"---...__ HEATHER L. PEARLMAN MULLERBRAZ Deputy Director 715 Twining Road, Suite 208 Torts Branch Dresher, PA 19025 Civil Division Phone: (215) 885-1655 U.S. Department of Justice Email: Leigh@mullerbrazil.com P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Fran.ldin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SERVICES: Jeffrey S. ~-'=!gnedby.lf!ffrey Beach -S oate: 2ois.01.22 13:39:16 m ~ :94'.W for_ HURLEY CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD. MPH DORIAN Director. Division of Injury Trial Attorney Compensation Programs Torts Branch Health Systems Bureau Civil Division Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice Administration P.O. Box 146 U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington. DC 20044-0146 5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-2SA Phone: (202) 353-7751 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov s ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01584-cl-extra-11132849 Date issued/filed: 2025-09-04 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10666262 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1584V JENNIFER SIGAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: August 4, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 On September 14, 2023, Jennifer Sigan filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On October 18, 2022, Petitioner received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, a vaccine contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). Petitioner alleges that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as defined in the Table; she further alleges that the flu vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury, and that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. 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). Nevertheless, on August 4, 2025, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $60,771.15 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id. I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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 Vinesign Document ID: 6F1F5BE3-EDC1-4161-BCC9-EE06EF0F6F6F IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS JENNIFER SIGAN. Petitioner, No. 23-1584V Chief Special Master Corcoran V. ECP SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. STIPULATION The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters: 1. Jennifer Sigan ("petitioner'') filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (the "Vaccine Program"). The petition seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner's receipt of an influenza (''flu") vaccine, which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the "Table"), 42 C.F.R. § I00.3(a). 2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on October 18, 2022. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA j within the time period set forth in the Table. Petitioner further alleges that petitioner suffered the residual effects of the alleged injury for more than six months. 5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on petitioner's behalf as a result of the alleged injury. The signed document can be validated at https://app.vinesign.comNerify 6. Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that petitioner's current condition is a sequela of a vaccjne-related injury. 7. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. 8. As soon as practicable after an entry ofjudgment reflecting a decision consistent with the terms of this Stipulation. and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a)(l), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue the folJowing vaccine compensation payment: A lump sum payment of$60,771.1S 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 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 9. As soon as practicable after the entry ofjudgment on entitlement in this case, and after petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2t(a)(l), and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before the special master to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this petition. 10. Petitioner and petitioner's attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to this Stipulation is not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa• l 5(g), to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies, Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX ofthe Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis. 2 11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Stipulation will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(i), subject to the availability of sufficient statutory funds. 12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award for attorney's fees and litigation costs, and past unreimbursed expenses, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa•15(g) and (h). 13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in petitioner's individual capacity, and on behalf of petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action (including agreements. judgments, claims. damages. loss of services, expenses and all demands of whatever kind or natw-e) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims, under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 0 et seq., on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on October 18, 2022, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about September 14, 2023, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 23-1584V. 14. If petitioner should die prior to entry ofjudgment, this agreement shall be voidable upon proper notice to the Court on behalfof either or both of the parties. 3 15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the tenns of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in confonnity with a decision that is in complete confonnity with the tenns of this Stipulation, then the parties' settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party. 16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amend~ except as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties' respective positions as to liability and/or amount of damages, and further, that a change in the nature ofthe injury or condition or in the items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement. 17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or any other injury or petitioner's current disabilities, or that petitioner suffered an injury contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. I 8. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shaH apply equally to petitioner's heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns. END OF STIPULATION/ 4 Respectfully submitted, PETITIONER: JENNIFER SIOAN AITORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PETITIONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: cJ~r MULLERBRAZ 715 Twining Road, Suite 208 Dresher, PA 19025 .....JA.JtJ~'w--Qec, 1h1d4C"---...__ HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch Civil Division Phone: (215) 885-1655 U.S. Department of Justice Email: Leigh@mullerbrazil.com P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Fran.ldin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT: AND HUMAN SERVICES: Jeffrey S. ~-'=!gnedby.lf!ffrey Beach -S m~ oate: 2ois.01.22 13:39:16 :94'.W for_ CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD. MPH DORIAN HURLEY Director. Division of Injury Trial Attorney Compensation Programs Torts Branch Health Systems Bureau Civil Division Health Resources and Services U.S. Department of Justice Administration P.O. Box 146 U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station and Human Services Washington. DC 20044-0146 5600 Fishers Lane, 08W-2SA Phone: (202) 353-7751 Rockville, MD 20857 Email: dorian.hurley@usdoj.gov s ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01584-cl-extra-11213441 Date issued/filed: 2025-12-03 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10746856 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1584V JENNIFER SIGAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: October 31, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On September 14, 2023, Jennifer Sigan 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 alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine she received on October 18, 2022. Petition, ECF No. 1. On August 4, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 28. 1Because 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $14,490.02 (representing $13,639.90 in fees plus $850.12 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed September 11, 2025, ECF No. 33. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred by the Petitioner. ECF No. 33 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on September 25, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Response at 2, 4. ECF No. 34. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and will therefore be awarded herein. And all time billed to the matter was reasonably incurred. Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 33 at 18-25. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $14,490.02 (representing $13,639.90 in fees plus $850.12 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall 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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2