VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00192
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00192
Petitioner: LeAnn Diercks
Filed: 2025-02-03
Decided: 2026-03-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2023-12-28
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: pending
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 3, 2025, LeAnn Diercks filed a petition alleging a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration after receiving an influenza vaccine in her left deltoid at a Pick-n-Save Pharmacy in Grafton, Wisconsin, on December 28, 2023. She was 47 years old at vaccination and had no documented history of left shoulder pain.

Respondent argued that Ms. Diercks could not establish a Table SIRVA because her symptoms were not limited to the vaccinated shoulder. The medical record showed that on January 11, 2024, she reported left shoulder pain that began after the December 28 flu shot, radiated down the elbow and under the armpit, and caused painful pressure. Dr. Christopher Eemisse found pain with palpation and shoulder maneuvers and assessed acute left shoulder pain, stating that the vaccine could have irritated the area and that the exam pointed to irritated rotator cuff tendons.

Ms. Diercks began physical therapy on January 15, 2024, reporting persistent left shoulder symptoms after the flu vaccine, with a dull ache, painful range of motion, positive impingement signs, reduced strength, and mild transient neurologic symptoms into the hand that had resolved the day after vaccination. By April 2024 she still reported burning pain into the fourth and fifth fingers, though her range of motion had improved with therapy. A July 1, 2024 MRI showed tearing of the intra-articular biceps tendon, partial-thickness tearing of the subscapularis tendon, tendinosis, and mild arthritis. Orthopedist Dr. Nathan Kopydlowski diagnosed left shoulder subacromial bursitis after vaccine, administered a cortisone injection, and recommended continued therapy. By September 2024 she reported drastic improvement, with nearly normal strength and range of motion.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found on March 13, 2026 that Ms. Diercks's injury was limited to the vaccinated left shoulder for purposes of the Table SIRVA requirement. The ruling resolved that fact issue only; entitlement and damages were not yet finally awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine in left deltoid on December 28, 2023 (age 47) allegedly causing left SIRVA; FACT RULING/PENDING, no damages yet. Respondent disputed Table SIRVA because symptoms allegedly extended beyond shoulder. Evidence credited: no prior left shoulder pain; Jan 11 2024 PCP exam with left shoulder pain after flu shot, painful palpation/Neer/reaching; Jan 15 PT with dull ache, painful ROM, reduced strength, transient hand symptoms; July MRI biceps/subscapularis tearing, tendinosis, mild arthritis; Dr. Nathan Kopydlowski diagnosed left subacromial bursitis after vaccine and gave cortisone injection; improvement by September 2024. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran found injury limited to vaccinated shoulder on March 13, 2026. Attorney: Daniel Alholm, Alholm Law PC, Chicago IL.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00192-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-13
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/13/2026 ) regarding 25 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:25-vv-00192-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-0192V
UNPUBLISHED
LEANN DIERCKS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: March 13, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Daniel Alholm, Alhom Law PC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On February 3, 2025, LeAnn Diercks 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”) from an influenza ("flu”) vaccine she received on December 28,
2022. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished 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 1:25-vv-00192-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner’s injury was limited to her
vaccinated (left) shoulder.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On February 20, 2025, about one year after the case was initiated, Respondent
filed a Rule 4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner cannot prove a SIRVA Table injury
because Petitioner “cannot establish that her symptoms were limited to the shoulder in
which the vaccine was administered.” Respondent’s Report at 5.
Because the Rule 4(c) report raises an isolated issue that likely resolves
entitlement in this case, I issue this fact ruling to resolve this issue. No further briefing
from the parties is required. My ruling is set forth below.
II. Relevant Medical History
Ms. Diercks was 47 years old when she received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid on
December 28, 2023, at Pick-n-Save Pharmacy located in Grafton, Wisconsin. Exhibit
(“Ex.”) 3 at 9; Ex. 4 at 1. She did not have a history of left shoulder pain. See Ex. 5 at 21,
33-188.
On January 3, 2024, six days post vaccination, Ms. Diercks went to her primary
care provider’s (“PCP”) office for her regular iron replacement infusion. Ex. 6 at 1005-06.
The supervising nurse performed an assessment, and Petitioner reported generalized
fatigue. Id. There is no mention of shoulder pain at this visit.
On January 11, 2024, 14 days post-vaccination, Ms. Diercks returned to her PCP’s
and was seen by Christopher Eemisse, D.O. Ex. 5 at 27. Petitioner reported left shoulder
pain that “started after her flu shot injection on December 28th…” Id. at 27-28. Ms. Diercks
stated that she had “left shoulder pain, radiated down her elbow, under armpits … [which]
started […] after receiving influenza vaccine on 12/28/2023. After vaccination, she has
extremely painful pressure. Using Tylenol.” Id. at 28. On exam, Petitioner had pain on
palpation, when reaching behind her head, and near the end of the Neer’s test on the left.
Id. Dr. Eemisse assessed “acute pain of the left shoulder” stating that the vaccine
“[c]ertainly could have irritated this area. Her exam does point to irritated cuff tendons.”
Id. at 29. He further stated that “I have a lower suspicion for joint involvement as passive
range of motion[] did not reproduce her pain.” Id. at 29. Dr. Eemisse referred Ms. Diercks
to physical therapy (“PT”). Id.
2

Case 1:25-vv-00192-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 7
On January 15, 2024, Ms. Diercks went to an initial PT evaluation. Ex. 6 at 988.
She reported that she:
started to experience left shoulder pain following receiving her influenza
12/28/23. She notes that her shoulder has continued to experience
symptoms since this event, noting that her symptoms have stayed
consistent, but have been variable day to day. She notes that her pain is
primarily an intense dull ache. She notes that she initially had some mild
neurological symptoms following this down to her hand, which resolved the
following day.
Id. Ms. Diercks also reported “concern[] for a possible SIRVA injury following vaccination,
noting that she feels that the needle placement was higher than injections she has
received in the past.” Id. On exam, Petitioner rated her pain at 4/10, had positive
impingement signs, painful ROM, and reduced strength. Ms. Diercks was prescribed PT
twice a week for 12 weeks, for a total of 24 visits. Id. at 989-90, 992.
On April 11, 2024, Ms. Diercks went to PCP Anna Kleyman, D.O., for a follow up
on her left shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 20. She reported that her “pain is burning, down to [her]
4th and 5th fingers.” Id. Petitioner also reported some improvement from Tylenol and
some improvement in her range of motion since starting PT. Id. A left shoulder x-ray was
normal. Id. at 17, 22. Dr. Kleyman recommended continued PT and that Petitioner return
if there was no improvement. At that time, an MRI would be considered. Id. at 23.
On June 17, 2024, almost six months post-vaccination, Ms. Diercks telephoned
Dr. Kleyman and reported daily pain from “SIRVA,” and that “[her] physical therapist
suspects that it is nerve damage that is causing this and we continue to treat it as such.”
Ex. 5 at 7. However, Petitioner requested an MRI “to get the information needed to identify
the specific injury.” Id.
On July 1, 2024, Ms. Diercks underwent a left shoulder MRI which showed tearing
of the intra-articular bicep tendon, a partial-thickness articular sided tearing of the
subscapularis tendon, mild-to-moderate supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinosis, and
mild arthritis. Ex. 6 at 751-52. Dr. Kleyman referred Petitioner to orthopedics. Id. at 734.
On July 19, 2024, Petitioner saw orthopedist Nathan Kopydlowski, M.D.,
complaining of left shoulder pain that had been ongoing since December 28, 2023, when
she received a flu vaccine. Ex. 6 at 709. Petitioner reported that the pain was “on the
outside of the [left] shoulder and radiating down into the bicep and across the front of the
chest.” Id. She also reported that “[t]he pain is located throughout the shoulder but can
radiate down the arm into her hand.” Id. at 711. On exam, Petitioner had positive
impingement signs, tenderness, joint crepitus, and normal active ROM. Id. at 712-13. Dr.
3

Case 1:25-vv-00192-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 4 of 7
Kopydlowski diagnosed Petitioner with “left shoulder subacromial bursitis after vaccine”
and administered an intra-articular cortisone injection. Id. at 713. Dr. Kopydlowski also
recommended continued PT and rechecks as needed. Id.
Ms. Diercks attended 21 PT sessions through September 19, 2024, that were
characterized by gradual symptom improvement and “feeling about 75% better” by June
3, 2024. Ex. 6 at 334, 842.
On September 24, 2024, nine months post-vaccination, Ms. Diercks followed up
with Dr. Kopydlowski and reported that her pain in the past couple of weeks had drastically
improved and that her range of motion and strength was nearly normal. Ex. 6 at 311. Dr.
Kopydlowski recommended a recheck if her symptoms failed to continue to improve. Id.
at 313.
III. Issues
The following issue is contested: whether Petitioner’s pain and reduced range of
motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine as administered as
set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”)
for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)((iv) (pain and reduced range of motion limited
to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered).
IV. 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). The Federal Circuit has said that
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).
4

Case 1:25-vv-00192-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 5 of 7
The Federal Circuit recently stressed, however, that records enjoy no automatic
presumption of accuracy, despite their “trustworthy” evidentiary character. Kirby v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Indeed, “medical
records may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998); see also Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475 at *19 (“written records
which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which
are internally consistent”).
The Court 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).
Thus, medical records may be outweighed 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 & Human 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 & 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 not only the medical
records, testimony, but also 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). And
although later oral testimony that conflicts with medical records is less reliable as a
general matter, it is appropriate for a special master to credit a petitioner’s lay testimony
where is does not conflict with the contemporaneous records. Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1382-
84.
V. Analysis
To establish a Table SIRVA, a petitioner’s pain and reduced ROM must be limited
to the shoulder in which the vaccination alleged as causal was administered. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iii). Respondent argues that since her initial presentation for pain on January
5

Case 1:25-vv-00192-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 6 of 7
11, 2024, Petitioner “consistently reported pain outside of her left shoulder.” Respondent’s
Report at 5. Respondent cites to several citations in the medical records where Petitioner
complains of pain burning down to her fingers, down her bicep, across the front of the
chest, and a notation from a physical therapist that there is the possibility of nerve
damage. Id.
While Respondent’s objection finds some support in the evidentiary record, the
objection must be taken in context of the full factual picture. First, there seems to be no
dispute that Petitioner’s reduced range of motion is limited to her left shoulder. The
primary question is whether her pain is limited to her left shoulder.
It is also undisputed that Ms. Diercks had no history of left shoulder symptoms,
including pain, prior to vaccination. Just 14 days after vaccination, Petitioner complained
to her PCP of left shoulder symptoms that typify the usual SIRVA injury – pain on
palpation, reduced range of motion, and she had positive impingement tests. Ex. 5 at 27-
28. And while Ms. Diercks did complain that her shoulder pain radiated down her elbow,
her PCP diagnosed Petitioner with acute pain of the left shoulder and agreed that
vaccination “certainly could have irritated this area.” Ex. 5 at 29.
When Petitioner was evaluated at her initial PT session, she again exhibited the
usual symptoms of a SIRVA injury as documented by the physical therapist – Petitioner
had positive impingement signs, painful ROM, and reduced strength. Ex. 6 at 989-992.
And while her physical therapist at one point suggested that Petitioner may have “nerve
damage,” the therapist made this assessment prior to Petitioner undergoing an MRI.
The MRI again confirmed typical SIRVA type symptoms such as tendinosis, in
addition to showing some tearing and arthritis. Ex. 6 at 751-52. After receiving a steroid
injection, Ms. Dierck’s pain seemed to have significantly improved, again lending support
to the claim that her injury is a SIRVA injury rather than a nerve injury that would not have
responded as well to a steroid injection. No additional nerve conduction studies or tests
were ever ordered. All of Petitioner’s treatment was to treat her left shoulder pain and
improve her range of motion. See e.g., Ex. 6 at 709 (steroid injection to left shoulder); Ex.
6 at 751-52 (MRI to left shoulder); Ex. 6 at 989-90, 992 (PT to treat left shoulder pain).
To the extent that complaints of pain related to areas outside the deltoid region, they bear
on damages – but the totality of the evidence still establishes pain primarily in the affected
shoulder. I thus find that Petitioner’s pain and reduced ROM is limited to the shoulder in
which the vaccination was administered.
Given my findings of fact, Respondent should evaluate and provide his current
position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s case.
6

Case 1:25-vv-00192-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 7 of 7
VI. Scheduling Order
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
(1) By Tuesday, April 17, 2026, Petitioner shall file all updated medical
records.
(2) Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, April 17, 2026, an
amended Rule 4(c) Report reflecting Respondent’s position in light of the
above fact-finding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7