VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00224
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00224
Petitioner: Jenifer Taylor
Filed: 2025-02-06
Decided: 2026-03-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-10-24
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: pending
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 6, 2025, Jenifer Taylor filed a petition alleging a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration after an influenza vaccine administered in her right arm on October 24, 2022.

The parties were unable to settle before the court addressed onset. Respondent argued that Ms. Taylor had not established that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. The record was not perfect: at a November 17, 2022 primary-care follow-up appointment she did not mention shoulder pain, and no musculoskeletal exam was done. But later records consistently linked the pain to the flu shot. On December 20, 2022, nearly two months after vaccination, she went to the emergency department for right upper arm pain since the October 24 flu shot. She reported returning to the pharmacy and being advised to try Benadryl, which did not help. On January 5, 2023, she saw an orthopedist and said the pharmacist had jabbed the needle into her arm and that she had pain ever since. On January 18, 2023, physical therapy evaluated her for adhesive capsulitis after she reported pain since the October vaccination.

Ms. Taylor's affidavit added the personal detail behind those records. She said the pharmacist was busy and administered the shot while leaning over a partially closed Dutch door. The injection immediately hurt, she cried out, and he apologized. Her shoulder was painful and swollen that night. About ten days later, when it had not improved, she returned to the pharmacy and was told to use Benadryl, Tylenol, and ice. She explained that when she saw her PCP in November, she still expected the shoulder to improve and had other health issues to discuss.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found on March 6, 2026 that Ms. Taylor's shoulder pain more likely than not began within 48 hours of vaccination. The ruling resolved onset only; entitlement and damages remained pending.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine in right arm on October 24, 2022, allegedly causing right SIRVA/adhesive capsulitis; FACT RULING/PENDING, no damages yet. Respondent disputed onset within 48 hours. Evidence credited: Dec 20 2022 ED record for right upper arm pain since flu shot, Jan 5 2023 orthopedist record describing painful jab and pain ever since, Jan 18 2023 PT for adhesive capsulitis since vaccination, affidavit describing immediate pain/swelling and delayed PCP mention due to other issues/self-care expectation. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran found onset within 48 hours on March 6, 2026. Attorney: Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, Chicago IL.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00224-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-06
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/06/2026 ) regarding 22 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-00224-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-0224V
JENIFER TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 6, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
James Connor Daughton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On February 6, 2025, Jenifer Taylor 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
October 24, 2022. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
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-00224-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 5
The parties were unable to settle the claim (ECF Nos. 13-19). Respondent now
asserts that Petitioner has not established that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours
of vaccination. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at *11-13 (ECF No. 20). For the reasons
set forth below, I find that Petitioner’s shoulder pain likely began within 48 hours of
vaccination.
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).
2

Case 1:25-vv-00224-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 5
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,
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 documents that Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her
right arm on October 24, 2022. Ex. 8 at 7-8.
• On November 17, 2022, Petitioner saw her primary care provider (“PCP”) for a
routine follow-up appointment, but did not mention shoulder pain. No
musculoskeletal examination was done. Ex. 4 at 18.
• Nearly two months after vaccination, on December 20, 2022, Petitioner was seen
in the emergency department for “pain in right upper arm area since she had flu
shot on 24th of Oct. 2022.” Ex. 6 at 80. The record states that she had returned
to the pharmacy where the vaccine was administered and received Benadryl, but
that it had not helped. Id.
• On January 5, 2023, Petitioner saw an orthopedist for right shoulder pain,
explaining she had received a flu vaccine at a pharmacy and “the pharmacist
jabbed the needle into her arm and [ever] since then she has had pain.” Ex. 1 at
24.
• On January 18, 2023, Petitioner underwent a physical therapy evaluation for
adhesive capsulitis. Ex. 6 at 14. She reported that she received a flu vaccine in
October and “since then has had pain.” Id.
• Petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the pharmacist was very busy, and
administered the vaccine while leaning over a partially closed “Dutch” door. Ex. 1
3

Case 1:25-vv-00224-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 5
at ¶ 5. When he put the needle in her arm, “it felt like I got jabbed and the injection
immediately hurt, like I was being stabbed.” Id. She “hollered out and he asked
me if he had hurt me, and I told him yes”; he apologized. Id. That night, her
shoulder was painful and swollen. Id. at ¶ 6. About ten days later, her shoulder
was not improving so she returned to the pharmacy. The pharmacist thought she
was having an allergic reaction, and recommended Benadryl, Tylenol, and ice. Id.
at ¶ 8. When Petitioner saw her PCP in November 2022, she focused on other
health issues that were pressing; at that time, she still expected her shoulder to
improve from Tylenol and ice as the pharmacist suggested. Id. at ¶ 11.
These medical records and testimonial evidence, reviewed in their totality,
establish that more likely than not Petitioner’s shoulder pain began within 48 hours of
vaccination. Petitioner sought care for her shoulder pain approximately two months after
vaccination, stating at that time that her pain had been present since vaccination.
Thereafter, she consistently related her pain to vaccination when seeking treatment.
Although Petitioner did not mention her shoulder pain to her PCP at her
appointment just over three weeks after vaccination, she has persuasively explained this
omission. She notes that at this time, she still expected her shoulder pain to resolve with
self-care, and that she had more significant matters to discuss with her PCP. That
Petitioner did not report her shoulder pain at this appointment is relevant to damages –
suggesting that her pain was not severe enough to merit urgent treatment – but does not
defeat a finding of Table-consistent onset.
Petitioner is encouraged to promptly re-engage Respondent in settlement
discussions in light of this finding. If these efforts are unsuccessful, briefing will be ordered
if warranted.
4

Case 1:25-vv-00224-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 5
Scheduling Order
• Petitioner shall file, by no later than Monday, April 06, 2026, a status report
providing an update on the parties’ discussions.
• Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, April 06, 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
5