VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01731
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01731
Petitioner: Doyle Manning
Filed: 2023-10-04
Decided: 2026-02-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2021-10-09
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Doyle Manning filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on October 9, 2021. He also received a Covid-19 vaccine on the same day. Mr. Manning sought treatment approximately seven weeks after vaccination, reporting pain in his left shoulder. Medical records from his urgent care visit and orthopedic consultations indicated full active and passive range of motion, though he experienced pain with certain movements. His own affidavits and those of his husband and friend stated that his movement limitations were due to pain avoidance rather than actual restricted range of motion. The respondent contested entitlement, arguing Mr. Manning had not established limited or reduced range of motion, a key criterion for a Table SIRVA claim. The court found that while Mr. Manning may have experienced pain, he did not preponderantly establish limited or reduced range of motion as required by the Vaccine Injury Table criteria. Therefore, his Table SIRVA claim was dismissed. The court noted that he might have a causation-in-fact claim for another injury and the case would be transferred out of the Special Processing Unit.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01731-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-10
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/09/2026) regarding 24 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01731-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1731V
DOYLE MANNING, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 9, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN, for
Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DISMISSING TABLE CLAIM1
On October 4, 2023, Doyle Manning filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza ("flu”) vaccine he received on October 9,
2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
1 Because this Fact 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 Fact Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:23-vv-01731-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 8
Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim must be dismissed, because he has not
preponderantly established that he suffered limited/reduced range of motion. He may,
however, have a causation-in-fact claim.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report contesting entitlement on May 16, 2024, in
which he argues that Petitioner “has not established limited or reduced ROM,” because
his “left shoulder was examined and found to have full ROM on numerous occasions,”
and because “Petitioner has not preponderantly established shoulder symptomology
within forty-eight hours of vaccination.” Rule 4(c) Report at 7.
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”) on July 8, 2024.
ECF No. 21. Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on August 15, 2024 and Petitioner
filed a reply (“Repl.”) on September 6, 2024. ECF No. 22-23. The matter is now ripe for
adjudication.
II. Relevant Facts
Medical Records
Petitioner had a long history of neck pain when he received flu and Covid-19
vaccines in his left deltoid on October 9, 2021. Ex. 2 at 3; See also Ex. 5 at 9; Ex. 4 at 21-
29.
Petitioner sought treatment at an urgent care on November 28, 2021, about seven
weeks after his vaccination. Ex. 4 at 14-15. He reported “pain on [the] left arm where he
had his covid booster shot x7 weeks.” Id. at 14. On exam, Petitioner had normal active
and passive range of motion. Id. at 15. He was referred to orthopedic surgery. Id.
Petitioner saw an orthopedic physician’s assistant on December 1, 2024. Ex. 5 at
11. The symptom onset day is memorialized in the relevant record as October 9, 2021.
Id. at 13. Petitioner reported “pain in his left shoulder [that] started a couple of weeks ago”
after receiving flu and Covid-19 vaccines. Id. An exam revealed full passive range of
motion, pain with special testing, and good strength. Id. He was diagnosed with rotator
cuff syndrome, prescribed Meloxicam, and given home exercises. Id. Petitioner also
received a cortisone injection to his shoulder. Id.
Petitioner returned to the orthopedic physician assistant on May 16, 2022, more
than five months later. Ex. 5 at 8. He reported that his “left shoulder felt great for a couple
of months after the shot,” but that the pain had returned, and that “it hurt to abduct his
shoulder and lay on his left side.” Id. at 10. Petitioner had full active and passive range of
motion, pain with resisted testing, and full strength. Id. He received a second cortisone
2

Case 1:23-vv-01731-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 8
injection and a referral for physical therapy to evaluate and treat his left shoulder with
“ROM as appropriate.” Id.
On August 12, 2022, Petitioner visited an urgent care for chest pain and fatigue.
Ex. 4 at 4. After an abnormal EKG, Petitioner was transferred to the emergency room for
evaluation. Id. at 5-6; Ex. 6 at 9. The notes for physical exam indicated “normal range of
motion.” Id. at 14. He was discharged the same day. Id. at 17.
Witness Statements
Petitioner filed two affidavits in support of his claim. Ex. 1, 15. He stated that his
“left shoulder pain began nearly immediately” after his vaccination. Ex. 1 at ¶3. Petitioner
stated that he “agree[d] that [he] ‘could’ move [his] left shoulder as they manipulated it
during the exams, but it was not without pain.” Ex. 15 at ¶5. He explained that he “can
avoid a large amount of the pain by not moving [his] left arm past a point where [he knows]
pain is likely to occur.” Id. at ¶3. He contends that his “range of motion . . . is necessarily
decreased” because he does not move it in ways that cause pain. Id. at ¶6.
Petitioner’s husband, Buren McCarver, provided an affidavit at Exhibit 13. He
recalled Petitioner complaining of soreness the day after vaccination. Id. at ¶4. He
remembered Petitioner “having difficulty raising his arm and [grimacing] after lifting even
the lightest of weights.” Id. at ¶6. He noted that “the pain noticeably reduces [Petitioner’s]
range of motion on a variety of tasks because he avoids going above or beyond the point
where he knows pain is likely to ensue.” Id. at ¶11.
Petitioner’s friend and co-worker, Beverly Wulkowicz, provide an affidavit at Exhibit
14. Ex. 14. She remembered Petitioner “working on some physical therapy exercises at
home, but largely, he just avoids using his arm in ways that he knows will cause pain.” Id.
at ¶8.
III. Applicable Legal Standards
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Section 11(c)(1).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy
has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
3

Case 1:23-vv-01731-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 8
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19. And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the
special master's discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
In addition to requirements concerning severity of petitioner’s injury, a petitioner
must establish that he suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case
4

Case 1:23-vv-01731-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 8
causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination he
received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is
compensable if it manifests within 48 hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F.
R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI
are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA
manifests as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring
after the administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular
administration in the upper arm. These symptoms are thought to
occur as a result of unintended injection of vaccine antigen or trauma
from the needle into and around the underlying bursa of the shoulder
resulting in an inflammatory reaction. SIRVA is caused by an injury
to the musculoskeletal structures of the shoulder (e.g. tendons,
ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological injury and
abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not
support SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the
neurological abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be
considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of
the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected
shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would
explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or
diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in
which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain
the patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of
radiculopathy, brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other
neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
5

Case 1:23-vv-01731-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 8
IV. Findings of Fact
Respondent argues that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate limited or reduced
range of motion from his SIRVA, as required by the third QAI for the claim.3 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iii); See also Bolick v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0893, 2023
WL 8187307, at *7-8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 19, 2023) (establishing that the third QAI
requirement “requires that a Petitioner demonstrate they suffered both pain and limited
range of motion”). Respondent notes that “Petitioner’s left shoulder was examined and
found to have full ROM on numerous occasions . . . including twice with his treating
orthopedic physician’s assistant.” Resp. at 8.
Petitioner argues that he has preponderantly established that he suffered limited
or reduced range of motion because he had positive impingement testing and pain with
movement, which he proposes is evidence of reduced active range of motion. Mot. at 10-
11. Further, Petitioner argues that the “omission of any notation for full ROM at Petitioner’s
December 1, 2021 physical assessment,” supports the conclusion that his active range
of motion was reduced. Resp. at 6. Finally, Petitioner argues that his diagnosis of left
rotator cuff syndrome, along with the imaging and treatments recommended by his
providers, are indirect evidence of ROM issues. Id. at 6, fn. 2.
This record, however, contains affirmative proof of a lack of ROM issues. Petitioner
sought shoulder-specific treatment on only three occasions – once at urgent care and
twice with an orthopedist – and was each time found to have full range of motion.4 Ex. 4
at 14-15 (normal active and passive range of motion); Ex. 5 at 8-10 (full passive range of
motion); 11-13 (full active and passive range of motion). The records also indicate that
Petitioner suffered pain with certain movements, but do not include complaints that his
range of motion was limited. See e.g. Ex. 5 at 8-10 (“it hurt to abduct his shoulder and lay
on his left side”); 11-13 (pain with special testing).
In addition, Petitioner’s affidavits, and those of his witnesses, make clear that
Petitioner’s motion limitations were due to pain (which made him reluctant to move his
shoulder), rather than actual range of motion deficits. See Ex. 13 at ¶11 (“the pain
3 Respondent also contests Petitioner’s evidence of onset of pain within 48 hours of his vaccination, which
can be likely resolved in Petitioner’s favor. See Ex. 5 at 13 (onset date recorded as October 9, 2021); Ex.
1 at ¶3 (his “left shoulder pain began nearly immediately” after his vaccination; Ex. 13 at ¶4, 6 (recalled
Petitioner complaining of soreness and “having difficulty raising his arm and [grimacing] after lifting even
the lightest of weights the day after vaccination.). Nonetheless, Petitioner’s inability to meet the Table’s
range of motion requirement is fatal to his Table SIRVA claim.
4 Respondent also notes a normal range of motion exam on August 12, 2022. Resp. at 8. But this was an
emergency room visit for chest pain and, other than an evaluation of Petitioner’s cervical spine, this record
does not indicate which body part(s) were tested, suggesting little evidentiary weight should be given to this
specific item of proof.
6

Case 1:23-vv-01731-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/10/26 Page 7 of 8
noticeably reduces [Petitioner’s] range of motion on a variety of tasks because he avoids
going above or beyond the point where he knows pain is likely to ensue.”); Ex. 14 at ¶8
(remembered Petitioner “working on some physical therapy exercises at home, but
largely, he just avoids using his arm in ways that he knows will cause pain.”); Ex. 15 at
¶3 (he “can avoid a large amount of the pain by not moving [his] left arm past a point
where [he knows] pain is likely to occur.); ¶5 (he “agree[d] that [he] ‘could’ move [his] left
shoulder as they manipulated it during the exams, but it was not without pain.”); ¶6 (his
“range of motion . . . is necessarily decreased” because he does not move it in ways that
cause pain.). In fact, the only evidence in the record of any actual limitation in range of
motion was Petitioner’s husband’s recollection of Petitioner “having difficult raising his
arm” the day after vaccination. Ex. 13 at ¶6. Otherwise, Petitioner has admitted that he
could fully move his shoulder, even if it caused him pain. Ex. 15 at ¶5.
This record thus does not preponderantly support the ROM SIRVA requirement.
As I explained in Bolick v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0893, 2023 WL
8187307, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 19, 2023), pain with motion “is not the equivalent
to demonstrating limited range of motion.” The Table element requires proof of the latter.
Petitioner argues that his case is distinguishable from Bolick, and more like Strand v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0365V, 2023 WL 2155188 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 22, 2023), in which I found subjective evidence of limited range of motion that was
sufficient to preponderantly satisfy the QAI criterion. Resp. at 4. But the Strand petitioner
had reported reduced range of motion, not just pain with motion, to his treating providers,
and those facts were corroborated by witnesses. Strand, 2023 WL 2155188 at *5-6. Here,
Mr. Manning did not complain of reduced range of motion when seeking treatment, nor
do the witness affidavits indicate evidence of reduced range of motion (other than
Petitioner’s reluctance to engage in movement to avoid pain). Thus, like the petitioner in
Bolick, Mr. Manning likely “manifested or experienced pain when his arm moved, and this
pay may have deterred him from certain actions,” but this is not enough to satisfy the
reduced or limited range of motion necessary to sustain a Table SIRVA claim. Bolick,
2023 WL 8187307 at *9.
Petitioner also argues that his diagnosis of left rotator cuff syndrome and the
imaging and treatment recommended are, in themselves, objective evidence of reduced
range of motion. Resp. at 6-8. But – a petitioner cannot prove a Table SIRVA by
demonstrating a diagnosis alone, even if the typical symptoms of that condition include
reduced range of motion. See Bolick, 2023 WL 8189307 at *9. Further, physicians
recommend imaging, such as x-rays or MRI’s, for a variety of reasons, including at the
request of the patient. Testing or imaging orders alone, without indication that they are
specifically to assess reduced range of motion, cannot provide sufficient evidence to
establish a Table SIRVA. Finally, the fact that the Petitioner was referred to physical
7

Case 1:23-vv-01731-UNJ Document 27 Filed 02/10/26 Page 8 of 8
therapy to evaluate and treat his left shoulder with “ROM as appropriate” is not enough
to infer the presence of reduced range of motion. See Schoenborn v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 21-0227V, 2024 WL 1342999, *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 28, 2024).
Accordingly, I find Petitioner has not preponderantly established that he suffered
limited or reduced range of motion. However, Petitioner may have a causation-in-fact
injury claim for some other possible injury based on this record, so the matter will be
transferred out of SPU.
Conclusion
Because Petitioner has not preponderantly established that he suffered from
limited or reduced range of motion, he cannot proceed in this action with a Table SIRVA
claim. Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim is therefore dismissed, for the reasons set forth
above. The case will be reassigned to a Special Master outside of SPU.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8