VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00004
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00004
Petitioner: Linda Maranto
Filed: 2025-01-03
Decided: 2025-10-31
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2024-05-29
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 115650.07

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 3, 2025, Linda Maranto filed a petition alleging that a Tdap vaccine administered on May 29, 2024 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The public record identifies her as a competent adult but does not state her exact age.

Before entitlement was granted, the case required a June 17, 2025 ruling on factual issues related to the claim. Respondent later conceded entitlement in a Rule 4(c) report, agreeing that the record supported Table SIRVA: no prior right-shoulder pain, pain within 48 hours, pain and reduced range of motion limited to the vaccinated shoulder, no alternative diagnosis, and residual effects for more than six months. Chief Special Master Corcoran granted entitlement on October 28, 2025.

On October 31, 2025, the Chief Special Master awarded $115,650.07 as a lump sum through counsel's IOLTA account. The award consisted of $115,000.00 for pain and suffering and $650.07 for past unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; Tdap vaccine May 29, 2024; Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. After a June 17, 2025 fact ruling, respondent conceded no prior right-shoulder symptoms, pain within 48 hours, pain/ROM limitation confined to vaccinated shoulder, no alternative condition, and residual effects beyond six months. Entitlement October 28, 2025; damages October 31, 2025. Award $115,650.07 ($115,000 pain/suffering + $650.07 expenses). Petition filed January 3, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00004-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-23
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/17/2025) regarding 14 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,,, Scheduling Order,, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/25 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-0004V
LINDA MARANTO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 17, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 3, 2025, Linda Maranto 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 a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine received in her right deltoid on May 29, 2024. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Respondent noted that the records in this case reflected a discrepancy as to the
vaccination situs and requested a fact ruling (ECF No. 12). For the reasons discussed
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 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/25 Page 2 of 4
below, I find that more likely than not the Tdap vaccine was administered in Petitioner’s
right deltoid.
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 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/25 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 the findings after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits, expert reports, Respondent’s Rule 4 report, and additional evidence
filed. Specifically, I base the findings on the following evidence:
• The vaccine administration record documents that Petitioner received a Tdap
vaccine in her left deltoid on May 29, 2024, during an emergency department
(“ED”) visit for a finger injury from a hedge trimmer (Ex. 4 at 11, 21, 29);
• At a June 7, 2024 primary care visit nine days later for removal of sutures from
her finger, Petitioner reported “extreme pain in the right arm, which started the
day after she received a tetanus injection at the hospital.” Petitioner was
diagnosed with a suspected vaccine reaction (Ex. 5 at 51, 55);
• During Petitioner’s June 12, 2024 telephone call to her primary care provider, she
complained of right arm and shoulder pain and limited range of motion from her
vaccination (Ex. 5 at 31);
• At a July 3, 2024 orthopedic appointment, Petitioner reported that she had a
vaccination a month prior and “[t]he next day had pain right shoulder” (Ex. 6 at
248);
• At Petitioner’s July 22, 2024 physical therapy evaluation, she reported that “she
received a Tetanus injection end of March3 into her R arm [then] woke up the
following morning with pain in her R arm” (Ex. 7 at 32); and
• Petitioner’s affidavit asserts that she received the tetanus vaccine in her right
shoulder, despite the record stating it was administered in her left shoulder, and
3 I note that this record refers to a March – rather than May – tetanus vaccination, which may be a
typographical error.
3

Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 17 Filed 07/23/25 Page 4 of 4
that she “would not have consented to a shot in [her] left arm” because she was
at the ED for an injury to her left hand; adding that she “vividly remember[s]
receiving this vaccine in [her] right shoulder due to [her] left-hand injury” (Ex. 3 at
¶ 3).
The above medical evidence and witness statement preponderantly establish that
Petitioner’s May 29, 2024 vaccine was likely administered in her right deltoid. Although
the vaccination record states that the vaccine was placed in her left deltoid, all remaining
evidence supports a right-side situs. Petitioner sought care promptly nine days after
vaccination reporting right shoulder pain that started the day after vaccination. Thereafter,
she consistently related her right shoulder pain to vaccination while seeking care from
several health care providers. And Petitioner has credibly emphasized that she would not
have agreed to receive a vaccine in her left arm because the reason for her ED visit was
an injury to her left hand.
III. Scheduling Order
Respondent shall file, by no later than Thursday, July 17, 2025, a status
report indicating whether he is willing to engage in tentative discussions regarding
settlement or proffer, is opposed to negotiating, or has not yet determined his
position.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00004-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/28/2025) regarding 25 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-0004V
LINDA MARANTO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 28, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 3, 2025, Linda Maranto 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 a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine received on May 29, 2024. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the Tdap
vaccine was administered in the United States, her symptoms have persisted for more
than six months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever filed any action for
Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury, nor has Petitioner or any other party ever received or
accepted compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related
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 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 2
injury. Petition at ¶¶ 4, 28-30. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On June 17, 2025, I issued findings of fact determining that the evidence
established that the Tdap vaccine was likely administered in Petitioner’s right arm (ECF
No. 14).
On October 27, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which, while
reserving his right to appeal my June 17, 2025 ruling, he concedes that Petitioner has
otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and is entitled to
compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1-2. Specifically,
Respondent agrees that, in light of my fact ruling and the record evidence, Petitioner’s
alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table in that
“petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her right shoulder prior
to vaccination; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination;
pain and reduced ROM were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was
administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain
petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 6-7. Respondent further agrees that the medical records
indicate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six
months, and has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act.
Id.
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
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00004-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-12-04
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/31/2025) regarding 29 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-0004V
LINDA MARANTO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 31, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 3, 2025, Linda Maranto 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 a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine received on May 29, 2024. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 28, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On October 31, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $115,650.07. Proffer
at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered
award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as
stated in the Proffer.
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 (2018).

Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 4
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $115,650.07 (consisting of $115,000.00 in pain and suffering
damages and $650.07 in unreimbursed expenses), to be paid through an ACH
deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to
Petitioner. 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.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 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
LINDA MARANTO,
Petitioner,
No. 25-0004V (ECF)
v.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 3, 2025, Linda Maranto (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2018) (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccination received on May 29, 2024. ECF No. 1 (“Petition”).
On October 27, 2025, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a
Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the
Act. ECF No. 24.
On October 28, 2025, Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that
petitioner is entitled to compensation. ECF No. 25. On the same date, the Chief Special Master
issued a damages order. ECF No. 26.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$115,650.07 in damages, consisting of $115,000.00 in pain and suffering damages and $650.07

Case 1:25-vv-00004-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 4
in unreimbursed expenses, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner
would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner be made through a lump
sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the
Court’s judgment award the following: a lump sum payment of $115,650.07 to be paid through
an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.1
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Naseem Kourosh
NASEEM KOUROSH
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
(202) 305-1159
DATED: October 31, 2025 Naseem.Kourosh@usdoj.gov
1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical
expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
2