VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01768
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01768
Petitioner: Irina Ioffe
Filed: 2023-10-10
Decided: 2025-11-19
Vaccine: influenza; COVID-19
Vaccination date: 2021-11-16
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 10, 2023, Irina Ioffe filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on November 16, 2021 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. She received both a COVID-19 vaccine and a flu vaccine in her left deltoid that day, with the COVID-19 dose given first and the flu shot afterward.

Ms. Ioffe reported left shoulder pain and was diagnosed early with adhesive capsulitis and tendonitis. She received a Medrol dosepak and Celebrex and attended five physical therapy sessions in December 2021, but stated that therapy worsened her pain. She stopped formal care while working full time as a single mother of two and relied on advice from her brother-in-law, a physician, who told her frozen-shoulder recovery could be long. Declarations described her continuing home exercises and shoulder pain through the gap in formal treatment. When she returned to care in July 2022, more than six months after vaccination, she reported she was still having pain from the prior November flu shot and that physical therapy had helped only partially; later treatment included MRI, cortisone injections, surgery, and post-surgical therapy.

Respondent conceded that the record satisfied the Table SIRVA criteria but argued that the treatment gap defeated the six-month severity requirement. Chief Special Master Corcoran rejected that argument. He credited Ms. Ioffe's explanation for the gap, the family-witness evidence, and the July 2022 record documenting continued pain. On November 19, 2025, he found her entitled to compensation. Damages remain pending.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; influenza and COVID-19 vaccines in left deltoid November 16, 2021; VICP claim proceeded on flu-vaccine Table SIRVA. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED, damages pending. Early adhesive capsulitis/tendonitis, Medrol/Celebrex, five PT sessions in Dec. 2021, treatment gap explained by worsened pain, single-parent/work demands, and physician brother-in-law advice; later July 2022 visit still reported pain, then MRI/injections/surgery/PT. Respondent conceded Table SIRVA criteria but disputed six-month severity. SM Corcoran found severity satisfied. Petition filed October 10, 2023; entitlement November 19, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-01768-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-22
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/19/2025) regarding 29 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-01768-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-1768V
IRINA IOFFE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 19, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Scott B. Taylor, Urban & Taylor, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 10, 2023, Irina Ioffe filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November 16,
2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner more likely than not suffered
the residual effects of her alleged vaccine-related injury for more than six months, and
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-01768-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 7
that she has satisfied all of the requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. Therefore,
Petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On July 9, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report contending that “Petitioner
has not established that she suffered from her alleged SIRVA injury for more than six
months post-vaccination.” Rule 4(c) Report at 6. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion
for Judgment on the Administrative Record (“Mot.”) on August 20, 2024. ECF No. 20, 22.
Respondent filed a response (“Resp.”) on November 6, 2024. ECF No. 24.
I proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to argue their positions
regarding entitlement during an expedited hearing, which was held on November 17,
2025.3 ECF No. 27.
II. Relevant Facts
Petitioner received both flu and Covid-19 vaccines in her left deltoid on November
16, 2021. Ex. 1 at 5, 7. She stated that she received the Covid-19 vaccine first, and then
the flu vaccine, which was given higher up on the arm. Ex. 2 at ¶6. Petitioner recalled that
she called her brother-in-law, who is a doctor, on the evening of her vaccination. Ex. 2 at
¶9. She remembered that he told her that her symptoms may be normal and to wait up to
a week for improvement. Id. Her brother-in-law filed an affidavit confirming the
conversation. Ex. 10 at ¶4.
One week after vaccination, Petitioner saw her brother-in-law and he examined
her shoulder. Ex. 2 at ¶11; Ex. 10 at ¶5. He told her to see her primary care provider
(“PCP”) if it had not improved in two weeks. Id.
Petitioner saw her PCP on December 8, 2021 (22 days after vaccination). Ex. 5 at
46. She was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis and tendonitis, prescribed a Medrol
dosepak and Celebrex, and referred to physical therapy. Id. at 54. She attended five
sessions of physical therapy between December 9-30, 2021. Ex. 7 at 2-18. Her plan of
care involved three sessions per week through February 25, 2022. Id. at 18. Petitioner
has stated that therapy only worsened her pain, and that as she is a single mother of two
children with a full-time job, she decided to see whether the pain would subside without
additional treatment. Ex. 2 at ¶14-15.
3 At the end of the hearing held on November 17, 2025, I issued an oral ruling from the bench on damages
in this case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the hearing, which is yet to be filed with the
case’s docket. The transcript from the hearing is, however, fully incorporated into this Decision.
2

Case 1:23-vv-01768-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 7
Petitioner’s brother-in-law recalled talking to her at the end of 2021 or beginning of
2022 about her shoulder pain. Ex. 10 at ¶6. He stated that he advised Petitioner “that
these type of orthopedic injuries tend to take a long time to resolve” and that “recovery
from frozen shoulder is a long process” so she could prepare “to deal with the pain for an
extended period of time.” Id. Petitioner stated that she “relied on this advice, had no
reason to doubt that this advice . . ., and attempted to work through the pain as best as
[she] could during the time when [she] was not actively treating with a medical provider.”
Ex. 13 at ¶2. Petitioner alleged that she “faithfully” performed her HEP during the entire
gap in treatment. Id. at ¶5, 7.
Petitioner’s mother filed an affidavit in which she states that she helped Petitioner
with several tasks after her vaccination, including bathing, dressing, and household
chores. Ex. 11 at ¶6. She stated that in the first half of 2022, she “personally observed
Irina perform daily exercises for her left shoulder, using restrictive bands and doing
exercise from a written set of instructions.” Id. at ¶8. She recalled that Petitioner could not
drive long distances, so she would drive Petitioner’s children to their activities. Id. at ¶6.
Petitioner’s brother-in-law recalled seeing her again during the summer of 2022,
when he learned that she had not returned to the doctor despite continuing symptoms.
Ex. 10 at ¶7. He advised her to return to her PCP and to follow the doctor’s advice with
respect to her shoulder pain. Id.
Petitioner then resumed treatment on July 29, 2022 (now eight months post-
vaccination). Ex. 5 at 24. She told her PCP that she was “still having pain” and that
physical therapy had helped, but not fully. Id. The doctor ordered an MRI, referred her to
orthopedics, and prescribed Celebrex and tizanidine. Id. at 31.
Petitioner saw an orthopedist on August 16, 2022. Ex. 4 at 2. Thereafter, she had
two cortisone injection (one post-surgical), an MRI, surgery, and post-surgical PT. Ex. 4;
Ex. 7; Ex. 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 Vaccine Act Section
11(c)(1). The Vaccine Act also 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). “[T]he 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 & Human Servs., No. 17-1013V, 2019 WL 978825, at
3

Case 1:23-vv-01768-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 7
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014).
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).
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
4

Case 1:23-vv-01768-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 7
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 Section 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).
IV. Findings of Fact - Severity
To satisfy the statutory severity requirement based on the facts of this case,
Petitioner must demonstrate that her symptoms more likely than not continued until at
least May 16, 2022 – six months after the onset of her pain on November 16, 2021. The
record establishes (and the parties agree) that Petitioner treated her left shoulder pain
through December 30, 2021, approximately six weeks after her vaccination – and then
did not seek shoulder-related care again until July 29, 2022 – more than six months later
and beyond the severity threshold. Respondent contends that the gap in treatment
defeats Petitioner’s claim because it “cannot be explained by a steroid injection or other
pain management” and because her later shoulder treatment “cannot reasonably be
attributed to her flu vaccination.” Resp. at 2.
But – Petitioner has provided a credible explanation for why she did not continue
to treat her shoulder pain. She stated that she consulted her brother-in-law, who is a
doctor, about her symptoms and followed his advice. See Ex. 2 at ¶2, 11; Ex. 13 at ¶2.
Petitioner’s brother-in-law filed an affidavit confirming the same facts. See Ex. 10.
Petitioner’s medical records are also consistent with the testimony. First, Petitioner’s
brother-in-law advised her to wait a week for symptoms to subside. Ex. 10 at ¶4; Ex. 2 at
¶9. He then examined her shoulder personally after that week and advised Petitioner to
seek medical care if her symptoms continued for two additional weeks. Id. at ¶5; Ex. 2 at
¶11. Petitioner saw her PCP twenty-two days (almost exactly three weeks) after her
vaccination. See Ex. 5 at 46. Then, Petitioner explained, although she had physical
therapy treatment planned through February 2022, she stopped it because she felt it
exacerbated her pain, and was difficult to pursue with her responsibilities as a working
single mother. Ex. 2 at ¶14-15; Ex. 7 at 18. Further, Petitioner’s brother-in-law had
advised her, around the same time, that recovery would be a long process. Ex. 10 at ¶6;
Ex. 13 at ¶2. And, he maintains, when he learned that Petitioner had not returned to
treatment by the summer of 2022 despite continuing symptoms, he advised that she seek
5

Case 1:23-vv-01768-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/22/25 Page 6 of 7
additional treatment. Ex. 10 at ¶7. Petitioner stated that she relied on his advice and
returned to treatment on July 29, 2022, and continue treating thereafter. Ex. 5 at 24; Ex.
13 at ¶2.
Further, when Petitioner resumed treatment after the gap, she reported to her PCP
that she was “still having pain” from her flu shot the previous November and that the
course of physical therapy had provided some, but not complete relief. Ex. 5 at 24. There
is no evidence that Petitioner’s shoulder pain had resolved prior to her July 29, 2022
appointment (and other evidence that it had not)4 and no evidence in the record of an
alternative cause for her symptoms since her flu shot. Petitioner also did not seek medical
treatment for other conditions during which she failed to report shoulder pain.
Thus, after consideration of the entire record, I find that the evidence
preponderates in Petitioner’s favor on the issue of severity. Of course, gaps in treatment
always inform any award for Petitioner’s pain and suffering, which Petitioner should
consider when formulating her demand for damages.
V. Ruling on Entitlement
A. Requirements for Table SIRVA
Respondent concedes that “the submitted evidence satisfies the [SIRVA] QAI
criteria.” Rule 4(c) Report at 5; See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i-iv). Therefore, I find that
Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence to establish that she suffered a Table
SIRVA injury.
B. Additional Requirements for Entitlement
Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, she need not
prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, she must satisfy the other requirements
of Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of injury,
and the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
The vaccine record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left arm on
November 16, 2021. Ex. 1 at 5; Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a covered
vaccine). Additionally, Petitioner has stated that she has not filed any civil action or
received any compensation for her vaccine-related injury, and there is no evidence to the
4 Petitioner’s mother provided an affidavit in which she stated that during the gap in treatment, she helped
Petitioner with bathing, dressing, household chores, and driving her children, and personally observed
Petitioner performing her home exercises for her shoulder. Ex. 11 at ¶6, 8. Petitioner’s former partner also
filed an affidavit in support of her claim in which he states that spoke to and saw Petitioner regularly
throughout 2022 and “during each such interaction with Irina, she would let [him] know that her left shoulder
was in significant pain and that her range of motion had not returned.” Ex. 12 at ¶7.
6

Case 1:23-vv-01768-UNJ Document 33 Filed 12/22/25 Page 7 of 7
contrary. Ex. 2 at ¶31-32; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). And as noted
above, I have found that severity has been established. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)
(statutory six-month requirement). Therefore, Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for
entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case. A separate damages order will be issued.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7