HIRST v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1176V
KYLE HIRST,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: December 1, 2025
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Austin Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 9, 2021, Kyle Hirst 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) following his receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 14, 2020.
After review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, I conclude
that Petitioner’s shoulder pain more likely than not began within 48 hours of vaccination.
Petitioner has also established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA. Accordingly, he
is entitled to compensation, and the motion for a ruling on the record is granted.
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 (2012).
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 11

2
I. 	Procedural History
On February 3, 2022, this case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters. ECF No. 12. An initial status conference was held on May 4,
2022. 	ECF 	No. 	15. 	Petitioner 	thereafter 	filed 	additional 	records. 	After 	delay 	to
Respondent’s medical review, on April 6, 2023, Respondent filed a status report indicating
that he was amenable to informal resolution of the claim and the parties attempted
settlement negotiations. See ECF No. 30. However, on September 13, 2023, Petitioner
reported that the parties had reached an impasse. ECF No. 35. On November 13, 2023,
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report opposing compensation. ECF No. 36 (“Rule 4(c)
Report”).
On June 11, 2024, I set this matter on a briefing schedule to address the issue
raised in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record
on July 26, 2024. ECF No. 39 (“Pet’r Mot.”). Respondent filed a response to this motion
on September 26, 2024. ECF No. 44 (“Resp’t Opp’n”). Petitioner did not file a reply. The
matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. 	Relevant Evidence
I have reviewed all of the evidence filed to date. I will only summarize or discuss
evidence that directly pertains to the determinations herein, as informed by the parties’
respective citations to the record and their arguments.
At the time of vaccination, Petitioner was 32 years old and worked at the San
Francisco headquarters of Genentech, a biotechnology company, as a scientist. See Ex.
4 at 12; Ex. 5 at 3. On October 14, 2020, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left arm
at a clinic set up for this purpose on Genentech’s campus. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 3 at 4. Petitioner
had a history of mild asthma and was undergoing testing for fatty liver. See Ex. 4 at 3-4,
12. Petitioner did not have any history of a prior injury or pain in his right shoulder.
On November 12, 2020 (29 days after vaccination), Petitioner had an appointment
with his primary care physician (“PCP”), Dr. Stephen Carney. Ex. 4 at 12. Petitioner
reported “left shoulder pain x 1 month.” Id. Dr. Carney also noted that Petitioner did not
“recall [an] injury.” Id. Dr. Carney believed Petitioner was suffering from a rotator cuff
injury, recommended ibuprofen, and referred him to an orthopedist. Id. at 13. Petitioner
declined a steroid injection at this time. See id.
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 11

3
A 	week 	later, 	on 	November 	19, 	2020, 	Petitioner 	saw 	orthopedist 	Dr. 	Dirk
Diefendorf. Ex. 5 at 3. Petitioner stated that he received the flu vaccine in his left arm
“about 1 month ago.” Id. Dr. Diefendorf wrote that Petitioner “was very sore after the shot
and acute pain lasted 5-7 days. The soreness has subsided but he still has lateral deltoid
aching and pain.” Id. Petitioner also described difficulty and discomfort with moving his
shoulder, particularly cross-body adduction. Id. Dr. Diefendorf assessed Petitioner as
having “[p]robable left shoulder post injection deltoid myositis.” 	Id. Dr. Diefendorf
recommended that Petitioner use heat on his shoulder twice a day and increase his dose
of ibuprofen for 10-12 days. Id.
On November 20, 2020, Petitioner saw a nurse at the Genentech health center.
Ex. 6 at 18. Again, Petitioner reported that after receiving the October 14, 2020 vaccine,
“his arm felt very sore for a few days,” and by a week later this acute pain was replaced
with a dull, chronic aching. Id. Petitioner was also unable to lift his left arm above his
head. Id. Petitioner stated that he “put up” with these symptoms for a few weeks until he
went to see his PCP. Id. 	Petitioner was referred to physical therapy (“PT”), which was
also provided at the Genentech campus. Ex. 6 at 20.
On November 23, 2020, Petitioner saw another nurse at the Genentech health
center. See Ex. 6 at 92. Petitioner stated that “on 10/13/20, he developed L shoulder/arm
discomfort after receiving the [f]lu vaccine at work.” Id. The nurse assessed a “possible
SIRVA.” Id. Petitioner was given a worker’s compensation packet and he submitted a
claim 	shortly 	thereafter. 	See 	id. 	Petitioner’s 	treatment 	was 	then 	coordinated 	and
authorized through Genentech and its insurer. See id. at 92-100. The records and emails
from 	the 	Genentech 	health 	center 	repeatedly 	listed 	the 	date 	of 	the 	worker’s
compensation-related “incident” as October 13, 2020, not October 14, 2020.
Petitioner also had his first PT session, remotely by video, on November 23, 2020.
Petitioner described pain “beginning following work sponsored flu shot injection to the
upper left arm area.”3 Ex. 6 at 92. This pain limited his ability to move his arm, sleep, open
doors, lift his child, and perform lab work. Id. The physical therapist recommended PT
once per week for six weeks. Id. at 22. Petitioner participated in five more remote
telehealth PT sessions through January 8, 2021.4 Id. at 20-68.
On December 14, 2020, Petitioner saw his PCP, Dr. Carney, for an annual
physical. Dr. Carney 	noted “[o]ngoing severe left shoulder pain induced by flu vaccine
3 The PT assessment stated that the date of Petitioner’s injury was October 13, 2020. Ex. 6 at 20. This date
is repeated throughout Petitioner’s PT notes.
4 Petitioner was also seen again at the Genentech health center on November 30, 2020. Id. at 92. At this
appointment, he was prescribed tramadol. Id.
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 11

4
given at work.” Ex. 4 at 6. Dr. Carney also commented that Petitioner had a “vaccine
complication – flu shot work related,” and that he would not receive his pneumococcal
vaccine until he recovered from “vaccine complication/shoulder pain.” Id. at 10.
At 	Petitioner’s 	request, 	the 	Genentech 	health 	center 	referred 	him 	to 	an
orthopedist. 5 Ex. 6 at 95. Petitioner saw Dr. Shabi Khan at Peninsula Orthopedic
Associates on January 19, 2021. Ex. 7 at 9. Dr. Khan stated that Petitioner’s left shoulder
symptoms “began in and around the time of a flu shot for him. However classic rotator
cuff and impingement type of history thereafter.” Id. Dr. Khan indicated that the date of
Petitioner’s 	injury 	was 	October 	13, 	2020. 	Id. 	Dr. 	Khan 	diagnosed 	left 	shoulder
impingement 	with 	possible 	rotator 	cuff 	and/or 	labral 	pathology, 	took 	x-rays, 	and
administered a steroid injection. Id.
On Dr. Khan’s orders, Petitioner underwent an MRI on February 4, 2021. Ex. 7 at
22-23. The MRI found that Petitioner did not have a rotator cuff tear, but did have a
“posterior inferior quadrant labral tear with a few tiny paralabral cysts between the 9-7:00
positions.” Id.
On February 22, 2021, Petitioner saw Nurse Practitioner (“NP”) Michael Wang at
Peninsula Orthopedic Associates. Ex. 7 at 7. Petitioner stated that he continued to
experience “left shoulder discomfort nearly 4 months from a flu shot injection.” Id.
Petitioner reported that he was “virtually not using his left shoulder for any activities to
prevent his left shoulder pain from worsening” and as a result was experiencing pain in
his right shoulder from overcompensating. Id. NP Wang diagnosed Petitioner with
impingement syndrome of the right shoulder and authorized additional PT for both
shoulders. 6 Id. at 8. Petitioner had 23 sessions of PT between March 5, 2021 and
September 8, 2021. Ex. 8 at 10-50; Ex. 14 at 55-60; Ex. 16 at 11-62. Petitioner also saw
NP Wang for follow-up appointments on March 29, 2021 and May 10, 2021. 7 Ex. 7 at 5-
6; Ex. 10 at 5-6.
On May 20, 2021, Petitioner saw Dr. Marko Bodor, a physical medicine and
rehabilitation physician, for a second opinion. Ex. 11 at 3. Petitioner recounted that he
had immediate pain in his left shoulder after the vaccination and “exquisite pain” the next
day and thereafter. Id. After examination, review of the MRI results, and performing an
5 Petitioner also saw one of the Genentech health center nurses on January 15, 2021. Id. at 100. Petitioner
stated that his symptoms had improved over the holidays, but had then worsened again. Id.
6 Petitioner also was referred to a psychiatrist to discuss his anxiety and depressed mood related to his left
shoulder pain, physical limitations, and concerns about his medical treatment. See Ex. 9 at 8-29.
7 NP Wang ordered an MRI of Petitioner’s right shoulder, which revealed rotator cuff tendinosis and mild
bursitis. See Ex. 10 at 8-9.
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 11

5
ultrasound of the most painful area of Petitioner’s left shoulder, Dr. Bodor believed that
Petitioner’s pain was “multifactorial,” but likely caused by inflammation stemming from the
flu vaccine. Id. at 4. After discussing various treatment options, Dr. Bodor injected a small
amount of local anesthetic into an area on Petitioner’s infraspinatus capsular junction and
also administered a glenohumeral steroid injection. Id.
On June 18, 2021, Petitioner returned to Dr. Bodor and underwent an ultrasound-
guided left shoulder ultrasonic aspiration and debridement of the infraspinatus tendon
and adjacent bone (Tenex procedure). Id. at 2. Dr. Bodor reported that after the
procedure, Petitioner was able to move his shoulder without difficulty. Id.
Petitioner saw Dr. Khan on June 21, 2021. Ex. 14 at 5. Dr. Khan recommended
conservative management of the left shoulder for the next six weeks to see how Petitioner
reacted to the Tenex procedure. See id. The remainder of the appointment focused on
Petitioner’s right shoulder. See id. Petitioner had his next follow-up with NP Wang on July
9, 2021. Id. at 9. Petitioner reported that his left shoulder was “feeling generally well” and
that he had been able to swing an axe while on a recent camping trip. Id. His right shoulder
was stable, but still painful, and so NP Wang administered a right shoulder steroid
injection. Id.
Petitioner had a brief telehealth appointment with Dr. Bodor on July 23, 2021. Ex.
15 at 16. Petitioner indicated that his left shoulder had improved after the Tenex
procedure, but then regressed after some exercise and physical activity. Id. Dr. Bodor
recommended that Petitioner continue with PT for “shoulder mechanics and stretching for
adhesive capsulitis.” Id.
On August 16, 2021, Petitioner saw NP Wang and reported that he now had nearly
full range of motion in his left shoulder, but continued to have pain and discomfort when
raising his arm. Ex. 14 at 15. NP Wang requested authorization for an arthroscopic labral
repair, which would potentially involve other related procedures. Id. On September 10,
2021, Petitioner had another appointment with NP Wang to discuss his questions
regarding surgery and the pre- and post-operative instructions. Id. at 20.
Petitioner saw Dr. Bodor on September 28, 2021. Ex. 15 at 13-14. Dr. Bodor did
not recommend that Petitioner undergo the labral repair surgery and instead believed that
Petitioner’s symptoms were being caused by residual adhesive capsulitis. Id. Dr. Bodor
suggested that Petitioner obtain a second opinion from Dr. John Costouros, “an
orthopedic surgeon who specializes in SIRVA.” See id. At an appointment on October 4,
2021, Dr. Costouros agreed with Dr. Bodor and recommended that Petitioner pursue
steroid injections and a passive stretching program instead of surgery. Ex. 17 at 13.
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 11

6
Following this advice, Petitioner informed Peninsula Orthopedic Associates that he
had decided not to move forward with surgery. See Ex. 14 at 26. However, he continued
to be seen by NP Wang for follow-up appointments on November 3, 2021, December 9,
2021, January 20, 2022, March 3, 2022, and April 14, 2022. See id. at 26-41. On
November 23, 2021, Petitioner underwent a second left shoulder MRI, with contrast,
which showed a posterior labral tear, humeral head subluxation, and rotator cuff
tendinosis. Id. at 15.
During the same time period, Petitioner received additional steroid injections from
Dr. Bodor on October 14, 2021, and December 22, 2021. See Ex. 15 at 6-12. Petitioner
informed Dr. Bodor that these injections were providing significant improvement, although
he still had some pain and stiffness. Id. at 7. Petitioner also began a third round of PT and
participated in 11 sessions between February 22, 2022 to May 4, 2022. Ex. 16 at 72-154.
Petitioner reported improvement from this PT to NP Wang. See Ex. 14 at 38.
Petitioner did not file any further medical records beyond May 4, 2022.
Petitioner has offered a declaration in support of the claim. 8 This declaration was
rather cursory and legalistic in its phrasing, however, and simply stated that Petitioner
developed left shoulder pain within 48 hours of vaccination. Ex. 1 at 1. Petitioner then
filed a second declaration with his July 2024 motion for a ruling on the record. Here,
Petitioner provided more details about the onset of his left shoulder pain. See Ex. 18 at
1.
In this second declaration, Petitioner described that he and his colleagues
experienced lengthy wait times to receive their flu vaccines and Petitioner felt that the
nurses were rushing. Id. Petitioner also recalled that he was sitting while the administrator
was standing and that it was more painful than other vaccines that he had received. Id.
According to Petitioner, “[i]n the days immediately following the vaccine,” he had
“substantial pain and discomfort, including swelling, tenderness and limited range of
motion.” Petitioner also explained that he did not seek treatment right away because he
hoped the symptoms would improve on their own and because it was difficult to schedule
a non-emergency appointment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 2. Finally, Petitioner
stated that he told Dr. Carney that he had not sustained any injuries to his left arm
because he had not had any kind of accident and did not know that a flu vaccine could
cause an injury. Id.
8 Petitioner’s declarations state that they were signed under penalty of perjury, but do not reference 28
U.S.C. § 1746. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 8 at 1.
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 11

7
III. 	Analysis
A. 	SIRVA Legal Standard
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 Section 11(c)(1).
A petitioner may prevail on his claim if he has “sustained, or endured the significant
aggravation of any illness, disability, injury, or condition” set forth in the Table. Section
11(c)(1)(C)(i). If a petitioner establishes a Table injury, causation is presumed.
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. Id. at
13(b)(1). Further, a special master may find that “the first symptom or manifestation of
onset . . . described in a petition occurred within the time period described in the [Table]
even though the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was
incorrectly recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Id. at 13(b)(2).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.”
Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Such
records “contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis
and treatment of medical conditions” and are “generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Id. 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. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that
“written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference
than those which are internally consistent.” Id. at *19. And the Federal Circuit has
“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 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 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
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 11

8
other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” 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 most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Vaccine Program, the corresponding injuries,
and the time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section
14(a). A Table SIRVA claim requires proof of onset of shoulder pain within 48 hours of
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), (c)(10)(ii). The criteria establishing a SIRVA
under the accompanying qualifications and aids to interpretation (“QAI”) are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as 	shoulder 	pain 	and 	limited 	range 	of 	motion 	occurring 	after 	the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 11

9
B. 	Petitioner Has Established by Preponderant Evidence the Onset of
Right Shoulder Symptoms Within 48 Hours Post-Vaccination
The only Table SIRVA element that Respondent disputes is onset. Rule 4(c)
Report at 8; Resp’t Opp’n at 8-10. Respondent’s primary objection is based on Petitioner’s
initial appointment with Dr. Carney on November 12, 2020. Respondent argues that this
appointment took place 29 days after vaccination, but Petitioner reported pain for
approximately one month, and failed to “link his shoulder pain to his vaccination” by
denying any specific injury. See id. In light of this lack of linkage at the first appointment,
any other instance in which Petitioner reported that the pain began shortly after
vaccination must be a “conclusion after-the-fact.” See Rule 4(c) Report at 8.
Respondent’s argument is unconvincing for numerous reasons. If Respondent is
suggesting that Petitioner’s pain actually began pre-vaccination due to the description of
one month instead of the exact 29 days, there is no evidence to support this conclusion.
Indeed, Respondent admits that Petitioner had no history of left shoulder problems. See
Rule 4(c) Report at 2. Further, a 29-day treatment delay is relatively short for a SIRVA
case. It is not uncommon for SIRVA claimants to believe that their symptoms will resolve
on their own, and therefore not seek medical care immediately after vaccination. Here,
Petitioner provided a reasonable explanation for the delay. See Ex. 18 at 2. Petitioner
also did not have any intervening appointments, and there are is no record of any
alternative, later onset. Nothing about the timing of the November 12, 2020 appointment
undermines Petitioner’s claim.
I also do not find Respondent’s emphasis on Petitioner’s purported failure to
initially associate his left shoulder pain with the vaccination to be persuasive. There is no
requirement in the Vaccine Program that a petitioner specifically blame a vaccination
when seeking treatment, as long as his reports do not implicate some other cause of the
symptoms. Again, claimants often do not expect the vaccination to have caused their
injury. Respondent’s argument also runs counter to the fact that causation is presumed
in Table cases.
Respondent further unduly discounts all of Petitioner’s other statements regarding
onset. Only one week after the initial appointment with Dr. Carney, Petitioner provided
greater detail about the onset of his pain to the Genentech health center nurse, Dr.
Diefendorf, and the physical therapist, making it clear to these treaters that it began within
48 hours of the vaccination. See Ex. 5 at 3; Ex. 6 at 18, 20. I do not find that there is any
conflict between how Petitioner initially described his pain and these slightly later reports,
such that they should be considered unreliable or afforded less weight. See Rule 4(c)
Report at 8.
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 11

10
Nor is Petitioner attempting to rebut medical records through his declaration
testimony, as Respondent contends. See Resp’t Opp’n at 9. Petitioner’s denial of any
specific injury, which he reasonably understood to mean a fall or accident, does not
undermine his description of when the pain actually began. See id. at 9-10. Throughout
his entire course of treatment, Petitioner consistently reported left shoulder pain that
started very shortly in time after vaccination. Petitioner made these statements for the
purpose of obtaining medical treatment and I give them significant weight on that basis.
Finally, Respondent makes the corollary argument that that references to October
13, 2020 as the date of vaccination or injury in the medical records illustrate Petitioner’s
“lack of precision in recalling his pain onset.” Rule 4(c) Report at 8. It is unclear in many
of these records whether Petitioner or the medical office incorrectly recorded the date.
Regardless, an error of one day for the vaccination date itself does not speak to
Petitioner’s ability to remember that his pain began immediately after that event,
whenever the vaccination actually occurred. A disparity of more than a day or two
between the true vaccination date and what a record sets forth would be needed to give
weight to this argument – and even then, records often do contain mistakes about
vaccination dates that are not insurmountable obstacles to a favorable onset finding.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Respondent does not raise any other objections to entitlement. See generally Rule
4(c) Report. Based on my independent review, I find that Petitioner has preponderantly
established all requirements for a Table 	SIRVA claim. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
Accordingly, he need not prove causation-in-fact. Section 11(c)(1)(C). I also find that
Petitioner has satisfied all other statutory requirements. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement
and is thus entitled to compensation for a left-sided Table SIRVA following the
October 14, 2020 flu vaccine administration. Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the
record is granted.
The case is now formally in the damages phase. The parties are encouraged to
pursue informal resolution of an appropriate damages award. If the parties determine that
informal resolution is not possible, they should be prepared to promptly brief the
appropriate award of damages.
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 10 of 11

11
By no later than Friday, January 2, 2026, Petitioner shall file a Status Report
updating me on the parties’ efforts towards informally resolving damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
Case 1:21-vv-01176-UNJ Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 Page 11 of 11