VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01928
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01928
Petitioner: Yeji Kim
Filed: 2024-11-21
Decided: 2026-03-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2023-12-29
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: pending
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 21, 2024, Yeji Kim filed a petition seeking compensation for a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration after an influenza vaccination in her left deltoid on December 29, 2023. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit.

The parties were unable to settle the claim before the court addressed a threshold SIRVA issue. Respondent argued that Ms. Kim had not shown her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination, pointing mainly to the gap between the vaccination and her first shoulder-specific treatment several months later.

The record tied Ms. Kim's symptoms back to the vaccine visit. At an April 2, 2024 orthopedic appointment with Dr. Gregory Galano, she reported a three-month history of left shoulder pain and explained that the day after the vaccine she had left arm tenderness and difficulty moving the arm. At an April 4, 2024 physical therapy evaluation, she again reported severe pain beginning after the flu shot and continuing without meaningful resolution. In her declaration, she described waking the day after vaccination with an extremely tender shoulder, worsening pain, stiffness, use of ice and over-the-counter medication, and difficulty performing job duties without help from co-workers. She also explained why she delayed treatment: she had moved to the United States less than a year earlier, was uncertain about insurance, faced a language barrier, and initially expected the pain to resolve.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found those records and testimony sufficient to satisfy the Table onset element for SIRVA. The March 24, 2026 ruling did not award damages or finally resolve the case; it decided only that the onset requirement had been met.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine in left deltoid on December 29, 2023, allegedly causing left SIRVA; FACT RULING/PENDING, no damages yet. Mechanism is vaccine administration trauma to shoulder structures. Respondent disputed onset within 48 hours because first shoulder treatment was in April 2024. Evidence credited: orthopedist Dr. Gregory Galano recorded next-day tenderness/difficulty moving arm; PT recorded severe pain after vaccination that did not go away; petitioner declaration explained next-day onset, work impact, insurance/language delay. Onset element satisfied. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran, petition filed November 21, 2024; fact ruling March 24, 2026. Attorney: Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, Aventura FL.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01928-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-24
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/24/2026) regarding 23 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-01928-UNJ Document 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1928V
YEJI KIM, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 24, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner.
Ryan Nelson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On November 21, 2024, Yeji Kim 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
December 29, 2023. Petition at 1-9. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
The parties were unable to settle the claim (ECF Nos. 13-20). Respondent now
asserts that Petitioner has not established that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours
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-01928-UNJ Document 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 4
of vaccination. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at *4-7 (ECF No. 21). For the reasons set
forth below, I find that this SIRVA Table element has been satisfied.
I. Authority
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
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,
2

Case 1:24-vv-01928-UNJ Document 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 4
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).
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).
II. Finding of Fact
I make these findings after a complete review of the record, including all medical
records, testimonial evidence, Respondent’s Rule 4 Report, and additional evidence filed.
Specifically, I highlight the following evidence:
• The vaccination record, documenting that Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her
left deltoid on December 29, 2023. Ex. 1 at 1.
• The record of Petitioner’s April 2, 2024 appointment with orthopedist Gregory
Galano, M.D., reporting a three-month history of left shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 8.
Petitioner explained that she had received a vaccine in that arm on December 31,
2023 (slightly misstating the date of vaccination), and that the following day she
experienced left arm tenderness and difficulty with motion. Id.
• The record of Petitioner’s April 4, 2024 left shoulder physical therapy evaluation.
Ex. 6 at 43. Petitioner reported that her pain “started 3 mos ago when she got an
influenza vaccine. She noted severe pain right after that did not really go away.”
Id.
• Petitioner’s declaration stating that when she awoke the day after vaccination, her
left shoulder was “extremely tender,” and the pain worsened throughout the day.
Ex. 8 at ¶ 6. She used ice and over-the-counter medications and rested her arm.
Id. Her arm pain and stiffness continued the next day and beyond, and she
needed help from co-workers to perform job duties. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. She found it hard
to believe that vaccination could cause so much ongoing pain, and initially thought
her symptoms might be due to differences in vaccines in the United States
(Petitioner had moved here from another country less than a year before
vaccination). Id. at ¶ 9. She was also hesitant to seek medical treatment due to
uncertainty about her health insurance coverage and a language barrier. Id. at
¶ 10. She found a doctor who spoke her native language, but he was not covered
by her health insurance. Id. Eventually, it became clear that her pain was not
subsiding, and she made an appointment. Id. at ¶ 12.
3

Case 1:24-vv-01928-UNJ Document 26 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 4
These medical records and testimonial evidence support a finding that Petitioner’s
shoulder pain likely began within 48 hours of vaccination. Respondent’s contention to the
contrary is based solely on the three-month span between vaccination and Petitioner’s
first treatment for her shoulder injury (ECF 21 at *5). But as I have stated many times in
other decisions, it is not uncommon for SIRVA claimants to delay seeking care in the hope
that the pain will resolve on its own. Tully v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-
1998V, 2024 WL 4533515 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 20, 2024) (finding onset occurred
within 48 hours although claimant did not seek care for two and a half months); Diaz v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 20-1003V, 2023 WL 8440873, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Nov. 1, 2023) (finding onset was within 48 hours where the petitioner delayed
seeking care for over three months after vaccination); Buck v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 19-1301V, 2023 WL 6213423, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 23, 2023)
(finding onset of pain occurred within 48 hours where the petitioner did not seek care for
over three months and noting that a delay in seeking care is relevant to onset, but not
dispositive).
In this case, Petitioner had additional compelling reasons for the treatment delay:
she had moved to the United States from another country less than a year before
vaccination, and a language barrier further complicated her ability to seek medical
treatment. When Petitioner did seek care, she consistently related her shoulder pain to
vaccination and described pain that began “right after” vaccination, and tenderness and
difficult with motion the following day. Ex. 3 at 8; Ex. 6 at 43. And there is nothing in the
record suggesting a later onset.
Scheduling Order
• Petitioner shall file, by no later than Friday, April 24, 2026, a status report
providing an update on the parties’ discussions.
• Respondent shall file, by no later than Friday, April 24, 2026, a status report
indicating whether he wishes to file an amended Rule 4(c) Report and, if so,
proposing a deadline for it.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4