VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00374
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00374
Petitioner: Karen Salberg
Filed: 2024-03-08
Decided: 2026-07-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-10-31
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Karen Salberg filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on October 31, 2022. She had no prior history of shoulder pain. Within a week of the vaccination, she began experiencing shoulder pain, which she consistently linked to the flu shot. Medical records documented her complaints of left shoulder pain and limited range of motion, and an MRI showed a tear suggestive of adhesive capsulitis. The Special Master found that Petitioner met the requirements for a Table SIRVA, including no prior shoulder condition, onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination (though reported on November 8, 2022, the court found sufficient evidence of onset near the vaccination date), pain limited to the vaccinated shoulder, and no other condition explaining the symptoms. The court also found that Petitioner met the severity requirement of suffering residual effects for more than six months and satisfied all other requirements for compensation. Therefore, the Special Master ruled that Karen Salberg is entitled to compensation.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00374-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-08-27
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/23/2026) regarding 17 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00374-UNJ Document 20 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-374V
UNPUBLISHED
KAREN SALBERG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 23, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
0
On March 8, 2024, Karen Salberg 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 left shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, caused by an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine administered on October 31, 223. Petition at 1.
For the reasons set forth below, I find Petitioner has established that she meets
the requirements for compensation.
1 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-00374-UNJ Document 20 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 7
I. Procedural History
On January 30, 2025, Respondent filed a status report representing a willingness
to pursue informal resolution of the above-captioned claim. ECF No. 12. That same day,
a status conference was held, and I issued a docket entry Scheduling Order providing the
parties with a filing schedule for a motion for ruling on the record and response to use if
they were unable to settle this case by the end of May 2025. On June 2, 2025, Petitioner
filed her Motion, along with a notification that the parties had been unable to resolve
damages informally. Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF No. 14 at 1-2.
Respondent submitted a response on June 27, 2025. Response to Petitioner’s Motion for
Ruling on the Record (“Resp.”), ECF No. 15.
II. Factual Background
A. Medical Records
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left shoulder on October 31, 2022. Ex. 1 at
1. Prior to her vaccination, she had no history of shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 27-38. On
November 3, 2022, Petitioner sought an orthopedic recommendation to address right
knee pain, but did not mention shoulder concerns. Ex. 8 at 6.
On November 8, 2022, Petitioner contacted her primary care provider, P.A. Megan
Thomas, with complaints of shoulder pain. Ex. 8 at 6. She wrote in a message that “flu
shot arm is still bothering me. It’s been over a week…. I’ve never had a problem with flu
shots before. Any idea how long this might last….?” Id. P.A. Thomas responded that it
could take two weeks for her arm to heal. Id. at 7.
Petitioner saw orthopedist Jesse Chastil, M.D., on December 6, 2022, for
treatment of right knee pain. Ex. 6 at 7-10. There is no mention of shoulder pain at this
meeting.
On January 20, 2023, Petitioner saw P.A. Thomas for a follow-up visit related to
her knee and other medical issues. Ex. 3 at 20, 23-25. She also reported that she
“[c]ontinue[d] to have some pain in her arm and shoulder in the left arm since having the
flu shot in October.” Id. at 24. Her arm was tender, but she exhibited full range of motion
and was referred to physical therapy. Id.
Petitioner began physical therapy on February 23, 2023. Ex. 4 at 16. She reported
“a sudden onset of left shoulder pain after receiving a flu shot on10/31/2022 that gradually
… worse[ned].” Id. She was assessed with pain, tendonitis “with impingement syndrome
2

Case 1:24-vv-00374-UNJ Document 20 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 7
resulting in adhesive capsulitis.” Id. Petitioner attended 12 physical therapy sessions
between February 20 and April 10, 2023. Ex. 4 at 12, 16. Petitioner attended six additional
physical therapy sessions between June 13 and 20, 2023. Ex. 4 at 7, 10, 32-33.
On May 22, 2023, Petitioner returned to P.A. Thomas for a follow-up visit regarding
her left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 14, 12-13. She reiterated the view that her symptoms began in
October 2023, and that she continued to have intermittent pain with range of motion
issues. Id. at 9. Petitioner had an MRI on June 12, 2023, that showed a low-grade tear of
the superior rotator cuff tendons, which was suggestive of adhesive capsulitis. Ex. 3 at
45-46.
On July 28, 2023, Petitioner saw orthopedic surgeon Todd Michael Wente for an
evaluation of her left shoulder. Ex. 6 at 13. She reported that her “[s]ymptoms began on
10/31/2022 without traumatic event. The patient reports she received the flu shot that
same day and the pain started shortly after.” Id.
B. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner submitted two declarations in support of her claim. Ex. 9. In the first
(signed on March 6, 2024), she explained that she felt pain when the vaccine was
administered, which grew progressively worse. Id. at 1. She also described how her injury
affected her daily life. Id. at 2-3. Her second statement (signed on May 16, 2025)
reiterates the contention that her shoulder pain began after her flu vaccine. Ex. 10 at 1-2.
III. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding her claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
In particular, a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the
Table criteria (i.e. a Table injury), in which case causation is presumed, or an injury
shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received. If a petitioner establishes
a Table injury the burden shifts to respondent to establish a more likely alternative
cause. Section 13(a)(1)(A), 11(c)(1)(C)(i), 14(a). If a petitioner cannot establish a Table
injury, or she may pursue causation-in-fact under the legal standard set forth in Althen
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 418 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
3

Case 1:24-vv-00374-UNJ Document 20 Filed 08/27/26 Page 4 of 7
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 an HPV vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XVI)(B). 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).
In addition to causation, a petitioner must also meet the requirements
establishing that the vaccine received is “covered” by the Program, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement.3 With regard to
2
severity, a petitioner must show that she suffered the residual effects or complications
of her injury or condition for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine.
§ 11(c)(1)(D)(i); see Song v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 31 Fed. Cl. 61, 65-66
(1994), aff'd, 41 F.3d 1520 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that a petitioner must demonstrate
the six-month severity requirement by a preponderance of the evidence). Finding that
petitioner has met the severity requirement cannot be based on petitioner's word alone,
though a special master need not base their finding solely on medical records. Section
13(a)(1); see Colon v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 156 Fed. Cl. 534, 541 (2021).
Severity must be established regardless of whether the claim arises under the Table or
3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
4

Case 1:24-vv-00374-UNJ Document 20 Filed 08/27/26 Page 5 of 7
is a causation-in-fact claim.
A. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA
After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA.
1. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury that
would Explain her Symptoms
The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the
affected shoulder prior to vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent does not
dispute that Petitioner can meet this criterion. I find that she has demonstrated a lack of
history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain her
symptoms.
2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of
her Vaccination
The medical records preponderantly establish onset of injury occurring close-in-
time to vaccination. Petitioner first reported shoulder pain on November 8, 2022. Ex. 8 at
6. Thereafter, she consistently linked her shoulder pain to the flu vaccine. See, e.g., Ex.
3 at 24 (record from January 20, 2023 stating that Petitioner continued to have arm pain
“since having the flu shot in October); Ex. 4 at 16 (record from February 23, 2023
describing “a sudden onset of left shoulder pain after receiving a flu shot on10/31/2022”).
Respondent argues that Petitioner first reported any shoulder pain on November
8th, but did not state a precise onset time or date. Resp. at 9-10. Further, Petitioner
delayed in seeking treatment until January 2023, despite treating for right knee pain in
December 2022. Id. at 11. However, given that Petitioner was told it may take time for her
shoulder pain to subside, and that the December meeting with an orthopedist was for
unrelated knee pain, it was reasonable that shoulder concerns were not discussed.
Further, when the record is viewed in its entirety, there is ample evidence to find proper
onset began near in time to the vaccination. Additionally, Program petitioners are not
required to marshal records setting forth with chronographic specificity the precise day
and hour that their onset manifested. As noted above, Petitioner reported pain fairly
quickly after her vaccination, and repeatedly linked her shoulder pain to the October 31,
2022, vaccination.
5

Case 1:24-vv-00374-UNJ Document 20 Filed 08/27/26 Page 6 of 7
Accordingly, there is preponderant evidence that establishes the onset of
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours of vaccination.
3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Vaccinated Shoulder
The record also establishes that Petitioner’s pain was limited to her left shoulder.
The reported symptoms, diagnostic evidence, and treatment were all limited to her left
shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 16 (physical therapy record describing left shoulder pain,
restrictions, and therapy following the flu vaccination)
Respondent argues that Petitioner experienced symptoms outside her shoulder,
including tightness and popping in her neck along with left hand weakness. Report at 12-
13. But these record references do not defeat a showing that Petitioner not only also
experienced shoulder-specific pain, but that most of her complaints and treatment efforts
were aimed at addressing it. Accordingly, preponderant evidence supports this Table
element as well.
4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality
The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or
abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim.
B. Other Requirements for Entitlement
In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide
preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does
not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall
record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements.
That record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on
October 31, 2022, in the United States. Ex. 1 at 1, see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring
receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) (requiring administration within the
United States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil
award for her injury. Ex. 9 at 3; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award).
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she meets the severity
requirements of the Vaccine Act, and that she suffered a Table SIRVA. Additionally, she
has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore find that Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case.
6

Case 1:24-vv-00374-UNJ Document 20 Filed 08/27/26 Page 7 of 7
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the
record as a whole, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7