VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00147
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00147
Petitioner: Kristen McLaughlin
Filed: 2024-01-30
Decided: 2025-10-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2021-11-13
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 110000

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 30, 2024, Kristen McLaughlin filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on November 13, 2021 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent initially opposed compensation, focusing on the SIRVA requirement that pain and reduced range of motion be limited to the vaccinated shoulder. Respondent pointed to records reflecting radiating pain.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued findings on June 12, 2025. He concluded that Ms. McLaughlin satisfied the disputed pain-location criterion and noted that respondent had not meaningfully contested the remaining SIRVA and statutory requirements. The decision directed further development and encouraged renewed settlement discussions.

The case resolved by stipulation. On October 22, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran adopted the joint stipulation and awarded Ms. McLaughlin $110,000.00 as a lump sum for all Vaccine Act damages. The public damages decision is a stipulation decision and does not add a detailed treatment chronology or expert testimony beyond the earlier entitlement discussion.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, November 13, 2021, alleged SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Respondent initially argued she could not satisfy Table SIRVA because records reflected radiating pain beyond the shoulder; Chief Special Master Corcoran ruled June 12, 2025 that the pain-location criterion was met and indicated respondent had not developed objections to the remaining SIRVA criteria. The parties later stipulated to $110,000 for all Section 15(a) damages. Final decision October 22, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00147-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-22
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/12/2025) regarding 27 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,,, Scheduling Order,, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/22/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-0147V
KRISTEN MCLAUGHLIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 12, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Beaulieu, Siri & Glimstad LLP, Louisville, KY, for Petitioner.
Margaret Armstrong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1
On January 30, 2024, Kristen McLaughlin 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”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November
13, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
Respondent has filed his report asserting that Petitioner cannot establish a Table
SIRVA because she experienced pain outside her left shoulder (ECF No. 25). After a
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 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/22/25 Page 2 of 7
review of the record, I find that Petitioner’s symptoms were likely primarily in, and
originated from, her shoulder.
I. Relevant Factual History
Petitioner received the vaccine alleged as causal in her left deltoid on November
13, 2021. Ex. 2 at 1. Five days later (November 18, 2021), she was seen at occupational
health, complaining of left shoulder pain that she rated as seven out of ten from a vaccine
received at work “a week ago.” Ex. 4 at 2. She described pain “on the left shoulder lateral,
radiating to the hand,” that was exacerbated by abduction. Id. Petitioner was advised to
see her primary care physician, and given a list of free or low-cost clinics, but it does not
appear that any treatment was provided. Id.
About two weeks later (December 4, 2021), Petitioner was seen at a walk-in clinic,
complaining of left shoulder pain for the past three weeks after a flu vaccine was
administered too high. Ex. 5 at 3. On examination, her left shoulder exhibited decreased
range of motion (“ROM”) in abduction due to pain. Id. She was assessed with left shoulder
bursitis and muscle spasm of her left trapezius, and given a muscle relaxant medication
and ibuprofen.
About a month after vaccination (December 15, 2021), Petitioner saw Dr. Kayvon
Yadidi for a worker’s compensation evaluation. Ex. 7 at 3. Her injury was listed as having
occurred on November 13, 2021 – the date of vaccination – with Petitioner explaining that
she “was administered the flu vaccine at work and shortly after began to experience
severe pain from it.” Id. She rated her pain three out of ten, and stated that it began on
November 13th. Id. at 4. She. Id.
On examination, Dr. Yadidi recorded Petitioner’s left shoulder ROM as 45 degrees
in forward flexion (normal: 180 degrees), 30 degrees in extension (normal: 60 degrees),
45 degrees in abduction (normal: 180 degrees), 15 degrees in adduction (normal: 45
degrees), and 30 degrees in external rotation (normal: 90 degrees); all of which were
painful. Ex. 7 at 4. She had positive results on the Hawkin’s and O’Brien’s tests. Id. She
was diagnosed with left shoulder pain and transient synovitis in her left shoulder. Id. at 5.
Physical therapy (“PT”) was recommended. Id. Petitioner attended PT from December
2021 to February 2022. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Yadidi on January 7, 2022. Ex. 7 at 17. She was feeling
better but still experiencing “significant pain.” Id. She was assessed with left shoulder
pain, left shoulder transient synovitis, and left shoulder strain, and given oral steroid
medication. Id. at 18. Dr. Yadidi also recommended continued PT. Id
Two weeks later (January 21, 2022), Petitioner followed up with Dr. Yadidi. Ex. 7
at 47. She had intermittent pain that she rated seven out of ten, and estimated that she
2

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/22/25 Page 3 of 7
was about ten percent improved. Id. Her ROM had improved, now 160 degrees in forward
flexion, 45 degrees in extension, 130 degrees in abduction, 60 degrees in internal
rotation, and 45 degrees in external rotation, all still painful. Id. at 48. She continued to
exhibit positive results on the Hawkin’s impingement test, but now had negative results
on the O’Brien’s test. Id. She was noted to be “slowly improving,” but still had moderate
pain at the vaccination site. Id. Dr. Yadidi recommended continued PT as well as an MRI
to rule out a bursal injury. Id.
Petitioner’s shoulder MRI revealed no evidence of a labral, biceps tendon, or high-
grade or full thickness rotator cuff tear. Ex. 8 at 21-22. However, there was bone marrow
edema at the posterolateral humeral head with overlying infraspinatus
tendinosis/insertional fraying and mild soft tissue swelling. Id. The radiologist suggested
possible SIRVA given Petitioner’s history of pain following a recent vaccine. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Yadidi on February 18, 2022, now reporting frequent
pain. Ex. 7 at 86-87. Dr. Yadidi noted that she continued to have pain and restricted ROM,
and recommended an orthopedic consultation and continued PT. Two weeks later (March
4, 2022), Petitioner reported frequent pain that she rated five out of ten. Id. at 103-04. Dr.
Yadidi noted that her MRI indicated SIRVA, and resubmitted authorization requests for
an orthopedic consult and continuation of PT. Id.
On April 29, 2022, Petitioner followed up with Dr. Yadidi, stating that she saw an
orthopedist, who recommended a cortisone injection. Ex. 7 at 147. Petitioner declined the
cortisone injection, continuing with anti-inflammatory medication and Tylenol along with
PT and cold compression as suggested by the orthopedist. Id. Petitioner continued to
follow up with Dr. Yadidi and attend PT over the next few months.
On August 18, 2022 (now nine months after vaccination), Petitioner underwent an
occupational injury evaluation. Ex. 3 at 11-14. Petitioner stated at this time that she had
received a flu vaccine at work in November of the prior year, and had experienced left
shoulder pain ever since. Id. at 11. She rated her pain five out of ten at rest, increasing to
between six and seven with movement, and noted that the pain radiated down to her left
biceps. Id. at 12. On examination, her left shoulder ROM in flexion and external rotation
were reduced compared to her right shoulder. Id. at 13. She was diagnosed with SIRVA
and chronic left shoulder pain. Id. at 14.
Two weeks later (September 1, 2022), Petitioner saw Dr. Emmet Berg for her left
shoulder pain. Ex. 9 at 12-14. She had done 18 sessions of PT, with some benefit in ROM
but no reduction in pain. Id. at 13. Dr. Samson, an orthopedist, had recommended a
cortisone injection, which Petitioner declined. Id. Petitioner asked for a referral for a
second opinion. Id. She rated her pain five out of ten at rest and seven out of ten with
movement. Id. The pain radiated down to her left biceps, and was now associated with
“episodic tingling down her arm.” Id. She was referred to an orthopedic shoulder
specialist, Dr. Getelman. Id. at 15. Petitioner saw Dr. Getelman the following month
3

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/22/25 Page 4 of 7
(October 4, 2022), and continued to follow up with him over the next several months,
ultimately undergoing shoulder surgery in 2023. Exs. 9, 11. She also attended more PT
both before and after surgery. Ex. 11.
II. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report
Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot prevail on a Table SIRVA claim because
she experienced pain outside of her left shoulder, and thus cannot satisfy the third QAI
criterion. Respondent’s Rule 4 Report at *8. Petitioner reported radiating pain from her
shoulder to her hand on November 18, 2021 (Ex. 4 at 2-3); radiating pain down her biceps
on August 18, 2022 (Ex. 3 at 12); and radiating pain and episodic tingling on September
1, 2022 (Ex. 9 at 13).3 Respondent’s Report does not discuss the remaining SIRVA QAI
or statutory requirements.
III. 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
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
3 Respondent also requests that Petitioner file missing orthopedic records and any updated medical
records. Respondent’s Report at *4 n.3, *7 n.6.
4

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/22/25 Page 5 of 7
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 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 v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (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 fact 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).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & 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).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
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 Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) are as follows:
5

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/22/25 Page 6 of 7
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).
Analysis
The record preponderantly supports a finding that Petitioner’s symptoms were
limited to her left shoulder. Unquestionably, on a few occasions Petitioner reported some
tingling and pain radiating to her arm and hand. But overall, her symptoms primarily
occurred in, and originated from, her vaccinated shoulder. See Valdez v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 21-0394V, 2024 WL 1526536, at *6-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb.
28, 2024) (finding third QAI satisfied despite pain radiating to upper arm and forearm
because the petitioner primarily experienced a shoulder injury consistent with SIRVA);
Cross v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1958V, 2023 WL 120783, at *7 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 2, 2022) (“claims involving musculoskeletal pain primarily occurring
in the shoulder are valid under the Table even if there are additional allegations of pain
6

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/22/25 Page 7 of 7
extending to adjacent parts of the body, since the essence of the claim is that a vaccine
administered to the shoulder primarily caused pain there”) (emphasis in original). In the
context of Petitioner’s treatment course, with PT and medical visits largely oriented toward
the treatment of her shoulder pain, these scattered references to symptoms radiating
down her arm are not sufficient to establish that the third QAI is not satisfied. (At best,
such instances might limit damages – for example, treatment that was aimed at alleviating
non-shoulder pain – although it is not immediately evident from this record that this was
an issue).
Respondent did not raise any concerns relating to the remaining QAI or statutory
requirements, and the record appears to support that these are met. Furthermore,
Vaccine Rule 4(c) requires that Respondent’s Report set forth “a full and complete
statement of its position as to why an award should or should not be granted,” and states
that it “must contain respondent’s medical analysis of petitioner’s claims and must present
any legal arguments that respondent may have in opposition to the petition.” As such, it
appears that Respondent agrees that the remaining SIRVA QAI and all statutory
requirements are satisfied. However, because Respondent did not specifically address
these matters in his report, I will afford him an opportunity to confirm his position in this
case in light of my ruling herein. In the meantime, the parties are encouraged to resume
informal negotiations, and Petitioner should file the records noted in Respondent’s report.
Accordingly:
• Petitioner shall file, by no later than Wednesday, July 23, 2025, the
following:
o A status report providing an update on the parties’ discussions;
o The orthopedic records of Dr. Samson referred to in Ex. 3 at 14;
and
o Any updated medical records.
• Respondent shall file, by Wednesday, August 06, 2025 , a status report
stating how he intends to proceed in this case in light of this fact ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00147-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-11-21
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/22/2025) regarding 34 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-0147V
KRISTEN MCLAUGHLIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 22, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Beaulieu, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Louisville, KY, for Petitioner.
Margaret Armstrong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On January 30, 2024, Kristen McLaughlin 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”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November
13, 2021. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed October 21, 2025, at ¶¶ 2-4. Petitioner further
alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she suffered residual
effects of her condition for more than six months, and there has been no prior award or
settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of the alleged injury.
Petition at ¶¶ 2, 42, 47, 48; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “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 vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
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.
2National 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-00147-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on October 21, 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:
Alump sum of $110,000.00,to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation
at ¶ 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 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED ST ATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
KRISTEN MCLAUGHLIN,
Petitioner, No. 24-147V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEAL TH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate to the following matters:
I. Kristen McLaughlin ("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. § I0 0.3(a)
2. Petitioner received a flu vaccine on November 13, 2021.
3. The vaccine was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that petitioner suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration ("SIRVA") following the flu vaccine 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.
Doc1D:d85ac7962216e66003dbbb1631865b7f1a2e5e96

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 7
6. Respondent denies that petitioner's 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 vaccine-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 tiled an election to receive compensation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2 I( aX I), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue
the following vaccine compensation:
A lump sum payment of $110,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to
petitioner's counsel's IOLT A 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-2 l (a){ I), 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.
J0 . 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-J5 (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 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. § J3 96 et seq.)), or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
2
DoclO:d85ac7962216e66003dbbb1631865b7f1a2e5e96

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 7
11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 and any amounts awarded pursuant to
paragraph 9 of this Stipulation wil I be made in accordance with 42 U. S.C. § 300aa-JS (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 attorneys' 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 of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5{a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-t S(g) and (h).
13. (n 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 nature) 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 Oe t 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 aJleged to have resulted from, the flu vaccination administered on
November 13, 2021, as alleged in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on or about January
30, 2024, in the United States Court of Federal Claims as petition No. 24-14 7V.
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry ofj udgment, this agreement shall be voidable
upon proper notice to the Court on behalf of either or both of the parties.
3
DoclO:d85ac7962216e66003dbbb1631865b7f1a2e5e96

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 6 of 7
15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms
of this Stipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a
decision that is in complete conformity with the terms 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 amended, 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 of the 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 petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; that the
flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged shoulder injury or any other injury; or that her current
condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.
18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
4
Doc1D:d85ac7962216e66003dbbb1631865b7f1a2e5e96

Case 1:24-vv-00147-UNJ Document 41 Filed 11/21/25 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
KRlSTEN MCLAUGHLIN
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA T l VE
PETIT[ONER: OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
. ~ o',t(u.,y'1-J?..eo ~ l,/Y\.
JOltfL IE¢H= HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP Deputy Director
JO 1 North Seventh Street, Suite 827 Torts Branch
Louisville, KY 40202 Civil Division
(509) 822-2463 .S. Department of Justice
jbeaulieu@sirillp.com P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
AUTHORCZED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SERVlCES:
Jeffrey S. Digitally signed by Jeffrey
-s S.Beach •S
Beach
______ - D o a f t o e o :2 ' 025.09.23 08:29:19 tor ~v ~
CAPT GEORGE REED GRIMES, MD, MPH MARGARET ARMSTR.0G
Director, Division oflnjury 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, 14 W-18 (202) 616-4043
Rockville, MD 20857 margaret.armstrong@usdoj.gov
5
Doc1D:d85ac7962216e66003dbbb1631865b7f1a2e5e96