VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00009
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00009
Petitioner: Diane Jeffers
Filed: 2024-01-04
Decided: 2026-03-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-09-21
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 4, 2024, Diane Jeffers filed a petition seeking compensation under the Vaccine Program, alleging shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving influenza on September 21, 2022.

Respondent contested entitlement.

The record credited onset within 48 hours. Ms. Jeffers and a friend described concern that the shot was administered too high, a large bubble on the arm, inability to sleep, and extreme difficulty using the arm.

The ruling focused on onset and entitlement rather than damages.

On March 3, 2026, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found petitioner entitled to compensation. Damages had not yet been resolved in the public decision.

Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC.

Theory of causation field:
influenza vaccine on September 21, 2022 (exact age not stated) allegedly causing shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA); onset 0 days/within 48 hours. ENTITLEMENT_GRANTED_PENDING_DAMAGES. Respondent contested entitlement. The record credited onset within 48 hours. Ms. Jeffers and a friend described concern that the shot was administered too high, a large bubble on the arm, inability to sleep, and extreme difficulty using the arm. Award/status: damages pending. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran; petition filed January 4, 2024; decision March 3, 2026. Attorney: Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC. No expert causation analysis in public stipulation/proffer.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00009-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-06
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/03/2026) regarding 25 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00009-UNJ Document 29 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-0009V
DIANE JEFFERS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 3, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 4, 2024, Diane Jeffers 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 a flu vaccine she received on September 21, 2022.
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 onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of her vaccination, and that she has satisfied
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 1:24-vv-00009-UNJ Document 29 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 7
all of the requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to
compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On October 24, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report contesting
entitlement. ECF No. 16. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record
Regarding Entitlement (“Mot.”) on January 31, 2025. ECF No. 20. Respondent filed a
response (“Resp.”) on March 6, 2025. ECF No. 21.
I proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to argue their positions during
an expedited entitlement hearing, which was held on February 20, 2026. ECF No. 23.
II. Relevant Facts
Medical Records:
Petitioner had a history of rotator cuff surgery on her right shoulder, and carpal
tunnel surgery on both hands. See Ex. 3 at 859, 868-69. She also suffered from back and
knee pain and osteoporosis, but had no history of left shoulder dysfunction. Id. at 7-12.
Six weeks before her vaccination, Petitioner fell and injured her knee, hip, and lower back.
Id. at 789.
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid on September 21, 2022. Ex. 1
at 1. Twenty days later, on October 11, 2022, she had a telephone visit with her
psychiatrist during which she mentioned several stressors in her life, including knee pain.
Ex. 3 at 849-50. She also reported sleeping well – 7-8 hours per night. Id. There is no
mention of shoulder pain.
Eight days later, on October 19, 2022 (now 28 days after vaccination), Petitioner
had a routine follow-up with her primary care provider (“PCP”). Ex. 3 at 858. Several
conditions were addressed, but there is no mention of shoulder pain. Id. Petitioner saw
her psychiatrist again on December 6, 2022. Id. at 847. She reported that her sleep had
been “fine,” and that she was wearing a boot on her ankle. Id. There is no mention of
shoulder pain.
On December 12, 2022 (now 85 days after vaccination), Petitioner went to urgent
care with complaints of left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 784. She reported pain “for the last 3
months, since getting her flu shot injection.” Id. She stated that “after the shot she had a
bubbling up of her injection site, that took a month to resolve.” Id. On exam, she had mild
tenderness to palpation and pain with extension and abduction. Id. at 785. She was
prescribed diclofenac ointment and a Medrol dosepak, and was sent for an x-ray and an
MRI. Id.
2

Case 1:24-vv-00009-UNJ Document 29 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 7
The x-ray showed only mild degenerative changes. Ex. 2 at 766. The MRI
(performed January 17, 2023) revealed high-grade, largely full-thickness, rotator cuff
tearing, labral tearing, “imaging features of adhesive capsulitis,” high-grade long head
biceps tearing, probable biceps tenosynovitis, probable bursitis, and “slightly increased
red marrow of the proximal humerus.” Id. at 768.
Petitioner saw an orthopedist on January 26, 2023. Ex. 3 at 872. She reported
acute onset left shoulder pain “following her flu shot in September.” Id. She noted that her
pain at the time was “severe,” “constant,” and “aggravated by and limiting her daily
activities involving reaching or lifting.” Id. The orthopedist’s review of the MRI was that
there was “degenerative chronic and significant tearing of the supra and infraspinatus
tendons.” Id. at 873-74. He noted “pain and crepitus with passive range of motion that is
relatively normal,” but active range of motion that was limited. Id. at 875. The doctor
opined that “the injection may have triggered pain but did not cause the cuff tear, which
was certainly preexistent but evidently not symptomatic.” Id. at 872. Petitioner was given
a cortisone injection and referred to physical therapy. Id. at 873.
On February 28, 2023, Petitioner saw her psychiatrist and reported that she had
been unable to drive to Virginia at the time of her sister’s death due to her left shoulder
pain. Ex. 3 at 845. She began OT the same day. Ex. 3 at 998. During her evaluation,
Petitioner reported left shoulder pain “which started in September 2022 s/p flu shot.” Id.
Treatment was planned once a week for four weeks. Id. at 1000. (Petitioner ultimately
completed seven treatments through June 12, 2023. Id. at 986).
Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on March 2, 2023. Ex. 3 at 868-69. Although
surgery was discussed, Petitioner reported that she was “comfortable with her current
condition,” and she chose to continue conservative treatment. Id. at 868. She returned
again on June 6, 2023, with continued pain and received a second cortisone injection. Id.
at 864-65. Petitioner continued to want to avoid surgery. Id. at 865.
Petitioner received additional cortisone injections through 2023 and into 2024. See
Ex. 3 at 108; Ex. 5 at 116, 158.
Affidavit Testimony
Petitioner filed two affidavits (one on February 9, 2024 and one on January 31,
2025 with her motion for a ruling on the record) in support of her claim. She stated that
she mentioned to the vaccine administrator that the vaccine had been placed too high,
and that she felt immediate pain - “like the needle hit a bone.” Ex. 4 at ¶1; Ex. 6 at ¶1.
She said that the injection site “bubbled up” to the size of a quarter, which took a month
to resolve. Id. She also states that she mentioned her shoulder pain during her October
19, 2022 visit with her PCP. Ex. 4 at ¶2; Ex. 6 at ¶3. In the first statement, Petitioner said
that the nurse practitioner “replied that it will probably heal over time.” Ex. 4 at ¶2. In the
3

Case 1:24-vv-00009-UNJ Document 29 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 7
second, she said that the nurse practitioner chose not to look at the “bubbled up” skin and
did not take her seriously. Ex. 6 at ¶3.
Petitioner reported in her first affidavit that she went to urgent care in December
2022 when her pain became unbearable. Ex. 4 at ¶4. In her newer affidavit, she said she
had begun calling for an appointment during the first week of November and the doctor
was booked “through December.” Ex. 6 at ¶6. She said she called every week for a
cancellation and at some point the schedulers suggested she go to urgent care. Id.
Petitioner added that she mentioned her shoulder pain to her psychiatrist “a few
times,” but not during the first few months after her vaccination because she knew it was
outside of his area of expertise. Ex. 6 at ¶10.
Petitioner’s daughter filed an affidavit in which she stated that Petitioner called her
on the day of the vaccination and told her that she had shoulder pain “immediately after
the shot.” Ex. 7 at ¶2. She remembered Petitioner telling her that she had spoken to her
doctor and been reassured that it would heal. Id. at ¶3. She also remembered Petitioner
telling her that she had told multiple doctors about her shoulder pain and “none of them
thought much of what she was reporting.” Id. at ¶4.
Petitioner’s friend filed an affidavit in which she states that Petitioner called her just
after leaving her vaccination appointment. Ex. 8 at ¶1. She remembered Petitioner saying
the shot was given too high and that the nurse dismissed her concern. Id. She stated that
Petitioner had a large bubble on her arm that took a month to go away. Id. She stated
that Petitioner “was unable to sleep” or use her arm without extreme pain. Id.
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). 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
4

Case 1:24-vv-00009-UNJ Document 29 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 7
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 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).
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
5

Case 1:24-vv-00009-UNJ Document 29 Filed 04/06/26 Page 6 of 7
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
IV. Findings of Fact - Onset
Respondent argues that Petitioner has not established that her pain began within
48 hours of her vaccination. Resp. at 8-9. In support, he highlights three medical
appointments Petitioner had between her vaccination and her December 12, 2022 visit to
urgent care for her shoulder pain. Id. Two were with Petitioner’s psychiatrist, a specialist
not expected to treat shoulder pain. See Ex. 3 at 847, 858. Although Petitioner did mention
shoulder pain to her psychiatrist on two later occasions, she did not seek or receive
treatment from him and discussed her pain in the global context of her life and functioning.
See id. at 845, 850. I thus do not give significant weight to these visits as opportunities
for Petitioner to have reported her pain.
More problematic is the October 19, 2022 record of a visit Petitioner had with her
PCP that does not record any complaint of shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 858. But Petitioner
subsequently linked the onset of her shoulder pain to her vaccination - at urgent care, to
her orthopedist, and during occupational therapy. See Ex 3 at 784 (reported pain “for the
last 3 months, since getting her flu shot injection.”); 872 (reported acute onset left shoulder
pain “following her flu shot in September.”); 998 (reported left shoulder pain “which started
in September 2022 s/p flu shot.”). And there are no records in which Petitioner reports
later onset. Thus, the one silent record does not outweigh the remaining records which
support a finding of Table onset, even if it reflects an instance in which Petitioner could
have reported shoulder pain.
In addition, Petitioner has provided affidavit testimony explaining the records and
her delay in seeking treatment – and thus supporting Table onset. Petitioner recalled that
she felt immediate pain after her vaccination - “like the needle hit a bone” and that the
injection site “bubbled up” to the size of a quarter, which took a month to resolve. Ex. 4 at
¶1; Ex. 6 at ¶1. Both Petitioner’s daughter and her friend filed affidavits in which they
stated that Petitioner called and complained of shoulder pain on the day of vaccination.
See Ex. 7 at ¶2; Ex. 8 at ¶1. Further, Petitioner stated that she mentioned her shoulder
pain to her PCP during the October 19, 2022 appointment and was led to believe that
waiting longer might resolve the problem. Ex. 4 at ¶2. These statements also tend to
explain Petitioner’s delay in seeking treatment until almost three months after her
vaccination. While these facts do not defeat entitlement, they are factors that I will
consider in determining compensation for Petitioner’s pain and suffering.
Although the record does not contain crystal clear statements of onset within 48
hours in medical records, the evidence taken as a whole supports a finding that Petitioner
more likely than not experienced pain within forty-eight hours of her vaccination.
6

Case 1:24-vv-00009-UNJ Document 29 Filed 04/06/26 Page 7 of 7
V. Ruling on Entitlement
A. Requirements for Table SIRVA
I have found that Petitioner has preponderantly established that her pain began
within 48 hours after her vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii). Respondent has not
contested Petitioner’s proof on the remaining elements of a Table SIRVA. 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
September 21, 2022. Ex. 1 at 1; 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
contrary. Ex. 4 at ¶8; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Finally, the medical
records indicate that Petitioner treated her shoulder pain consistently through June 12,
2023 – approximately nine months after her vaccination. See e.g. Ex. 3 at 784, 872, 986.
Thus, 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