VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00203
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00203
Petitioner: Barbara Miles
Filed: 2024-02-09
Decided: 2025-10-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-09-30
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 46010

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 9, 2024, Barbara Miles filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered in her left deltoid on September 30, 2022 caused a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent first disputed whether she met the Vaccine Act's six-month severity requirement.

Ms. Miles contacted her primary care provider about two weeks after vaccination with left-shoulder pain since the flu shot, pain with overhead lifting, inability to sleep on the left side, and little relief from Tylenol PM and heat. The same day she contacted the pharmacy, and on October 18 she again reported pain since the flu injection and asked about physical therapy or a cortisone shot. Orthopedic evaluation on November 9 recorded pain with external rotation, resisted forward flexion and abduction, normal strength, and positive impingement signs; the orthopedist thought the impingement was likely bursitis caused by the shot and gave a steroid injection. In January 2023, Ms. Miles reported improvement after the injection, but in February she requested MRI and PT because pain remained. At a March 7 PT evaluation, she reported immediate post-vaccination pain and inability to move her arm for a couple of weeks, current morning tightness, and pain ranging from 2/10 to 6/10. She later stopped PT, explaining in her affidavit that she had a poor experience and continued exercises at home.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found on August 7, 2025 that Ms. Miles had barely established severity beyond six months. He credited the March 2023 PT record and discharge materials, along with her explanation for stopping formal therapy, while noting that the injury appeared mild and would warrant a modest award. Respondent then conceded entitlement, and entitlement was granted on October 16, 2025. The damages decision that same day awarded $46,010.00 for pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses as a lump sum through counsel's IOLTA account. Ms. Miles was represented by Bridget Candace McCullough of Muller Brazil, LLP.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; influenza vaccine September 30, 2022; left Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Oct. 2022 shoulder pain with overhead lifting/sleeping limitation; Nov. 2022 orthopedist found impingement likely bursitis from shot and gave steroid injection; Jan. 2023 improved; Feb./Mar. 2023 persistent pain, PT, pain 2-6/10. Respondent disputed six-month severity; SM Corcoran found severity barely met, then respondent conceded entitlement. Fact ruling Aug. 7, 2025; entitlement/damages Oct. 16, 2025. Award $46,010.00 pain/suffering + expenses. Petition filed Feb. 9, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00203-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-08
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/07/2025) regarding 19 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/08/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-203V
BARBARA MILES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 7, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Dima Jawad Atiya, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On February 9, 2024, Barbara Miles 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 a Table claim – that she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
September 30, 2022. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
A disputed fact issue has arisen regarding whether Petitioner’s injury meets the
Act’s “severity requirement.” For the reasons discussed below, I find it more likely than
not that Petitioner can establish this claim element.
1 Because this Fact Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post
it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002.
44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 (2012).

Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/08/25 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report on October 28, 2024, contending that
Petitioner has not established that she suffered her alleged SIRVA for more than six
months post-vaccination. ECF No. 17 at 7. Specifically, her last records referencing left
shoulder pain or treatment was on March 17, 2023 – five months and 17 days post
vaccination. Id. at 8 (internal citations omitted). Respondent argues Petitioner’s
attestations of ongoing pain are inconsistent with the medical records that show gaps in
treatment and continued care for other ailments. Id. at 9. The issue of severity is thus ripe
for consideration.
II. Relevant Authority
Pursuant to Section 13(a)(1)(A) of the Vaccine Act, 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 & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl.
381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for inconsistencies
between contemporaneously created medical records and later testimony: (1) a person’s
failure to recount to the medical professional everything that happened during the relevant
time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to 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
2

Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/08/25 Page 3 of 8
Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed, or varied, by
testimony that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Camery, 42 Fed. Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-
2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The credibility of the
individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
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 & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
III. Finding of Fact Regarding Severity
I make this finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, and additional evidence filed, and in particular the following:3
• Petitioner received the flu vaccine in her left deltoid at a local pharmacy on
September 30, 2022. Ex. 1 at 3.
• Approximately two weeks post vaccination, on October 13, 2022, Petitioner
had a call with her primary care provider (“PCP”)’s office for left shoulder
3 While I have reviewed all the evidence filed to-date in this case, only evidence related to a determination
of severity will be discussed herein, though other facts may be provided as necessary.
3

Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/08/25 Page 4 of 8
pain. Ex. 2 at 495. Petitioner stated she had pain since receiving the flu
vaccine on September 30, 2022. Id. Petitioner reported “pain with overhead
lifting,” an inability to sleep on the left side, and a “bone pain.” Id. She noted
she had “good range of motion [(“ROM”)] but admit[ted] to pain.” Id.
Petitioner stated she was taking Tylenol PM and was using a heating pad
“without much relief.” Id. The assessment included an injection site reaction;
specifically, that “this is likely NOT an allergic reaction to the flu vaccine
itself but rather an injection issue.” Id. at 496 (emphasis in original). The
treater recommended heat and Tylenol for the pain. Id.
• Later that same day, Petitioner sent a message to her PCP’s office stating
that she contacted the pharmacy where she received the subject
vaccination and reported shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 523. She was informed that
the pain “usually goes away within three days.” Id. Petitioner’s treater
advised her to continue “conservative” treatment with nightly Motrin. Id.
• On October 18, 2022, Petitioner messaged her PCP reporting left shoulder
pain “since [her] flu injection.” Ex. 2 at 522. Petitioner stated that she had
“been taking Motrin and using the heating pad to no avail.” Id. Petitioner
questioned next steps and inquired about physical therapy (“PT”), or a
cortisone shot. Id. at 522-23. Petitioner was prescribed Mobic (meloxicam)
and referred to orthopedics. Id. at 528.
• Petitioner had an orthopedic evaluation for left shoulder pain on November
9, 2022. Ex. 3 at 7. Petitioner reported her pain began after a flu vaccination
on September 30, 2022. Id. She noted that meloxicam “did not help.” Id.
Upon examination, Petitioner had “external rotation with pain,” pain with
resisted forward flexion and abduction, normal strength, and positive
impingement signs. Id. The orthopedist opined that Petitioner had “an
impingement likely related to bursitis caused by the shot.” Id. Petitioner
received a steroid injection. Id.
• On January 24, 2023, Petitioner saw her PCP for her annual wellness visit.
Ex. 2 at 576. Petitioner reported that she “started to have significant
shoulder pain after she got a flu shot at [her local pharmacy].” Id. at 578.
Petitioner also noted an orthopedist had diagnosed her with bursitis and that
she “felt better after she had a steroid injection.” Id. An examination showed
normal ROM. Id. at 579. Petitioner’s visit diagnoses included “acute pain of
left shoulder” that was “secondary to bursitis after . . . flu shot,” and the PCP
noted that Petitioner was “doing better.” Id. at 580.
4

Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/08/25 Page 5 of 8
• The next month, on February 14, 2023, Petitioner contacted her PCP
requesting referrals for an MRI and PT to address her ongoing left shoulder
pain. Ex. 2 at 613-15. Petitioner stated that “[a]lthough most of the pain was
taken away by the Cortizone [sic] shot a couple months ago, [she was] still
having pain in that arm (especially when [she] wake[s] up).” Id. at 615.
Petitioner was “worried that the intense pain w[ould] return.” Id.
• Petitioner had an initial PT evaluation on March 7, 2023. Ex. 4 at 15. She
reported that her left shoulder pain began after her September flu
vaccination and she “immediately had L[eft] shoulder pain and was unable
to move her arm for a couple weeks.” Id. Petitioner stated that she “received
a cortisone injection in late November and since her shoulder has been
feeling better and she has been able to move it more.” Id. She explained
that she was “currently experiencing shoulder tightness in the AM” but her
sleep was “undisturbed.” Id. Petitioner rated her current pain at a 4/10, with
a range from 2-6/10. Id.
• Upon examination, the treater noted pain with left shoulder abduction and
external rotation, but Petitioner’s ROM was otherwise within normal limits.
Ex. 4 at 15-16. Despite the notation regarding a normal ROM, the treater’s
assessment included “weakness and limited ROM in the L [sic] shoulder.”
Id. at 16. The treater recommended PT twice a week for six weeks – or
through approximately April 18, 2023. Id. at 17.
• The next day (March 8, 2023), Petitioner went to a minute clinic for nasal
and head congestion. Ex. 2 at 263. There was no mention of shoulder pain
at this visit and a physical examination revealed normal ROM. Id.
• Petitioner had PT visits scheduled for March 9, 13, 15, and 17, 2023, but
she did not attend any of these scheduled visits. Ex. 4 at 4-13.
• On March 17, 2023, Petitioner requested to be discharged from PT; the
treater noted that “no reason [was] given.” Ex. 4 at 4-7, 9-10. The
“instructions” from this date included “discharge” but also to “[p]rogress
[upper extremity] exercises and improve pain free ROM.” Id. at 10. At the
time of discharge, Petitioner filled out a “patient outcomes” questionnaire
and rated her pain at a 3/10. Id. at 8. She also noted mild-to-moderate
difficulties with activities of daily living including opening a jar, household
chores, carrying bags, washing her back, and preparing food. Id.
5

Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/08/25 Page 6 of 8
• Between March 13 and March 27, 2023, Petitioner communicated with her
PCP regarding a COVID diagnosis and accompanying symptoms. Ex. 2 at
629-41, 646-49. And, on March 26, 2023, Petitioner went to a minute clinic
for nasal congestion. Id. at 652. Petitioner did not mention shoulder pain
during this time.
• Six months and one day post vaccination (on March 31, 2023), Petitioner
had an appointment at her PCP’s office for an unrelated sinus issue. Ex. 2
at 656-68. There was no mention of shoulder pain at this visit or thereafter.
See id. at 674-758, 764-93, 808-53.
• In her affidavit (drafted in February 2024), Petitioner attested that her
shoulder is still “very sore when it rains” and she still has “difficulty lifting
[her] arm all the way up.” Ex. 5 ¶ 16. She explained why she discontinued
PT and noted that her “experience from the start was not a good one.” Id. ¶
12. Specifically, she was “dismayed” with her assigned therapist after he
did not greet her upon entry to the facility. Id. Petitioner attested that she
went back to PT “on one occasion, but then did the exercises at home for a
long time.” Id. ¶ 13.
• No additional evidence regarding the severity of Petitioner’s injury has been
submitted.
ANALYSIS
The Vaccine Act 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). To satisfy the six-month requirement, “[a] potential petitioner must do
something more than merely submit a petition and an affidavit parroting the words of the
statute.” Faup v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-87V, 2015 WL 443802, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 13, 2015). Rather, a petitioner is required to “submit supporting
documentation which reasonably demonstrates that the alleged injury or its sequelae
lasted more than six months[.]” Id.
Additionally, “the 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.” See Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1013, 2019 WL 978825, at
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
6

Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/08/25 Page 7 of 8
No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (finding that
a petitioner suffered from residual symptoms that due to their mild nature did not require
medical care and thus that “a discharge from medical care does not necessarily indicate
there are no residual effects”). In another SPU case, where a petitioner’s last treatment
was at five months and nine days, the petitioner was found to meet the six-month
requirement. Schafer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0593V, 2019 WL 5849524
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 28, 2019). In that case, based on the petitioner’s symptomology
and progression, the special master noted that it was unlikely “that petitioner’s shoulder
symptoms would have resolved within [the next] 22 days.” Id. at *7.
In this case, there appears to be no dispute that Petitioner received the flu vaccine
on September 30, 2022, and that the onset of her post-vaccination shoulder symptoms
occurred within 48 hours of the subject vaccination. See ECF No. 17 at 9-10 (objecting to
the diminished ROM Table SIRVA requirement, only). She therefore must demonstrate
by preponderant evidence that her residual symptoms continued for more than six months
thereafter from onset, or through April 2, 2023 (at the latest). See, e.g., Herren, 2014 WL
3889070, at *3.
The records discussed above establish that on March 17, 2023 (merely 15 days
shy of the severity “cut-off”), Petitioner filled out a form rating her pain at a 3/10 and
describing mild-to-moderate difficulty performing certain activities due to her shoulder
pain. Ex. 4 at 8. More so, just ten days prior to this visit (at her first PT visit on March 7th),
Petitioner rated her pain similarly (ranging from a 2-6/10), and she had pain with abduction
and external rotation of her left shoulder on examination. Id. at 15-16. Accordingly,
additional PT was recommended to address these ongoing symptoms, for six weeks or
through mid-April 2023 (at the earliest). Id. at 17.
These record notations, paired with a proposed continued treatment course as of
March 2023 (approximately six months post vaccination), provide evidence that
Petitioner’s injury was at this point likely ongoing, and that her treating physician did not
predict that the injury was likely to resolve soon thereafter – or even within the next few
weeks. See, e.g., Schafer, 2019 WL 5849524, at *7.
I also do not construe Petitioner’s decision to cease treatment after March 17, 2023
(or not to return to PT), as compelling evidence that her injury had resolved by that time.
Rather, Petitioner’s treatment cessation has a sufficiently reasonable explanation (that
she had a perceived unpleasant experience with PT and therefore continued to perform
the exercises at home for an extended period of time). See Ex. 4 at 10 (a March 17, 2023
PT discharge instruction to progress her upper extremity exercises to improve symptoms
of pain with ROM); see also Ex. 5 ¶ 13 (stating that after PT, she “did the exercises at
home for a long time.”). While Petitioner did obtain treatment after March 17, 2023, for
7

Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/08/25 Page 8 of 8
non-shoulder related, acute issues, I do not conclude from this that her alleged SIRVA
had likely resolved fully by this time or by the end of March/early April.
Compared to other SIRVA injuries, however, Petitioner’s left shoulder pain and
related symptoms do not appear to have been especially severe, even at the time she did
obtain treatment. And significantly, she did not seek follow up care after March 2023 –
which if nothing else underscores the mild nature of her injury. Although the medical
records do allow for the conclusion that Petitioner’s injury meets the Act’s severity
requirements, those same records establish an injury that will not entitle Petitioner to
anything more than a fairly modest award of pain and suffering.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Petitioner has just barely established the Vaccine Act’s temporal severity
requirement. I will note, however, that Respondent’s remaining objection to a Table
SIRVA4 (not discussed in this Ruling) could ultimately require more evaluation. I thus
strongly encourage the parties to promptly attempt an informal resolution of this claim
before expending any further litigative resources on the case. If at any time informal
resolution appears unlikely, given that the claim has been pending in SPU for over one
year (having been assigned in May 2024), the parties should propose a method for
moving forward, i.e., with a proposed briefing schedule or otherwise stating how they wish
to proceed.
Accordingly, by no later than Monday, September 22, 2025, the parties shall file
a joint status report confirming the date on which Petitioner conveyed, or intends to
convey, a reasonable settlement demand and supporting documentation for
Respondent’s consideration. The status report may also state whether Respondent
wishes to file an amended Rule 4(c) report and, if so, proposing a date for submission.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Respondent also contested that Petitioner could establish a Table SIRVA claim, as she never had
documented reduced ROM on examination, but rather only exhibited pain with motion. ECF No. 17 at 9
(citing Ex. 3 at 7).
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00203-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-15
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/16/2025) regarding 23 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-203V
BARBARA MILES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 16, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Dima Jawad Atiya, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 9, 2024, Barbara Miles (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination
on September 30, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the
residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 7, 2025, I issued a fact ruling finding that Petitioner suffered the residual
effects of her injury for at least six months post vaccination, as alleged. ECF No. 19.
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-00203-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 2
On October 15, 2025, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
states that in light of my Fact Ruling, he will not continue to defend this matter on other
grounds and requests a ruling on the record regarding Petitioner’s entitlement to
compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 2, ECF No. 22. Specifically, Respondent
indicated that Petitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury
Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for SIRVA. Id. at 7. Respondent “does
not dispute that [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under
the Act.” Id. at 8.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00203-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-15
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/16/2025) regarding 25 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 30 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-203V
BARBARA MILES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: October 16, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Dima Jawad Atiya, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON DAMAGES1
On February 9, 2024, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered to her
on September 30, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months,
and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of
an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 15, 2025, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer
in which he stated, in light of my fact finding on severity, he would not contest entitlement
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of
2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012).

Case 1:24-vv-00203-UNJ Document 30 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 2
on other grounds and that Petitioner is thus entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer, ECF No. 22. On October 16, 2025, I issued
a Ruling on Entitlement. ECF No. 23.
Respondent represents that Petitioner agrees to his proffer on an award of
compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 8. Based on the record as
a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer,3 I
award the following compensation:
A lump sum of $46,010.00 (for pain and suffering and past unreimbursable
expenses) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA
account for prompt disbursement. This amount represents compensation for all
damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Because the combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer contains information regarding Petitioner’s personal
medical history, which is not generally included in a Proffer when separately filed, it is not attached hereto.
4 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