VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00865
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00865
Petitioner: Stephen Coleman
Filed: 2026-01-13
Decided: 2026-02-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2023-12-08
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Stephen Coleman filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 13, 2026, alleging he suffered a Table injury, specifically shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), as a result of his influenza vaccination on December 8, 2023. He further alleged that he experienced residual effects of the injury for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on January 12, 2026, conceding that the petitioner is entitled to compensation. The respondent's review of the medical records indicated that the petitioner's injury was consistent with SIRVA, noting no prior history of shoulder issues, pain occurring within 48 hours post-vaccination, limited range of motion in the vaccinated shoulder, and no other identified condition to explain the pain. The respondent also agreed that the petitioner suffered residual effects for more than six months, that the case was timely filed, the vaccine was administered in the United States, and that the petitioner had not filed a civil action or received prior compensation. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, the Chief Special Master found that Stephen Coleman is entitled to compensation.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-00865-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-12
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/13/2026) regarding 20 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:25-vv-00865-UNJ Document 23 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-865V
STEPHEN COLEMAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 13, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 21, 2025, Stephen Coleman 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 he suffered a Table injury - shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the administration of his December 8,
2023 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered
the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and that there has been no
prior award or settlement of a civil action on his behalf as a result of his injury. See Petition
at ¶¶ 11-12. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
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-00865-UNJ Document 23 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 2
On January 12, 2026, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at
1. Specifically, Respondent states that
DICP [Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and
Human Services] has reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case
and has concluded that compensation is appropriate. DICP has concluded that
petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury
Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction
of his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt
of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and limited range of motion were present in
the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or
abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§
100.3(a), (c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined above,
petitioner suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months.
Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B);
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i).
Id. at 5-6. Respondent further agrees that
[w]ith respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, the records show that the
case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that
petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual
effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine
administration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i); Ex. 4 at 29-31; Ex. 5 at 40.
Petitioner also avers that he has not “received compensation in the form of an
award or settlement for [his] vaccine-related injury” and has not “filed any civil
action for [his] vaccine-related injury.” Ex. 8 at 2, ¶ 11. Thus, in light of the
information contained in petitioner’s medical records and affidavit, respondent
concedes that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under the terms of 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