In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1265V

UNPUBLISHED

WILLIAM DORRIS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 13, 2019

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Findings of Fact; Intramuscular 

Route of Administration; Influenza 

(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Jeffrey T. Sprague, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

FINDING OF FACT1

On August 21, 2018, William Dorris 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 

25, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 it 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner’s October 25, 2017 flu 

vaccine was administered intramuscularly into Petitioner’s left deltoid. 

I. Relevant Procedural History

On September 5, 2018, Petitioner filed medical records as Petitioner’s Exhibits 

(“Pet. Ex.”) 1-5 and a statement of completion (ECF Nos. 7-8). On October 17, 2019, 

Petitioner filed an affidavit, Pet. Ex. 6 (ECF No. 9). The initial status conference was held 

on October 18, 2018. Following the initial status conference, Respondent was directed 

to file a status report indicating how he intended to proceed in this case (ECF No. 10). 

On September 19, 2019, Respondent filed a status report stating that he had 

conducted a medical review of the claim and believed that a factual ruling on the 

administration of the vaccine was needed. Respondent’s Status Report, filed Sept. 19, 

2019 (ECF No. 20). Respondent requested that a ruling be made prior to setting a 

deadline for the Rule 4(c) report. Id. 

On October 30, 2019, a telephonic status conference was held. Following the 

status conference, I informed the parties that following the receipt of any additional 

evidence or a status report I planned to issue a fact ruling concerning the route of 

administration (ECF No. 21). 

On November 6, 2019, Petitioner filed a status report (ECF No. 22). Petitioner 

explained that he had attempted on numerous occasions to contact the vaccine 

administrator but that it had gone bankrupt and attempts to obtain documentation from 

the company and its successor were unsuccessful. Id. Thus, Petitioner confirmed that 

no additional documentation exists. Id. On November 6, 2019, Petitioner also filed Exhibit 

7, which Petitioner indicated is “Vaccine Recommendations and Guidelines” for Vaccine 

Administration published by the Centers for Disease Controls Advisory Committee on 

Immunization Practices. Id.; Pet. Ex. 7. The issue of the route of administration of 

Petitioner’s October 25, 2017 flu vaccine is now ripe for resolution.

II. Medical Records

While I have reviewed the entire record, because this ruling concerns only the 

route of administration of Petitioner’s October 25, 2017 flu vaccine, only evidence relevant 

to this issue is summarized herein. 

On October 25, 2017, Mr. Dorris received a flu vaccine. Pet. Ex. 1 at 1. The 

influenza vaccination consent form lists Petitioner’s name and date of birth and indicates 

that he was administered a quadrivalent vaccine. Id. The form is signed by Petitioner 

and dated 10/25/17. Id. At the bottom of the form is a section marked “To be completed 

by person administering vaccine.” Id. This section lists the date as 10/25/17, the lot 

number and expiration date of the vaccine, and the name of the person who administered 

the vaccine. Id. This section also contains the following text: “Site of Injection (Circle 

One): R Deltoid / L Deltoid.” Id. “L Deltoid,” meaning left deltoid, is circled. Id. 
3

On May 9, 2018, Petitioner presented to Jaguar Therapeutics for a physical 

therapy initial evaluation for pain in his left shoulder/upper arm.3 Pet. Ex. 2 at 1. In the 

history of present condition/mechanism of injury section the record states, “[p]atient states 

mechanism of injury was having a flu shot that was improperly given to the upper shoulder 

area instead of in the lateral deltoid.” Id. 

III. Petitioner’s Affidavit

Petitioner submitted an affidavit in support of his claim on October 17, 2018. Pet. 

Ex. 6. In it, Petitioner avers that he received the October 25, 2017 flu vaccine at a health 

fair sponsored by his employer. Id. at ¶ 1. Petitioner states, “[w]hen the vaccine 

administrator gave me the shot, I complained to her that the shot was excruciatingly more 

painful than any previous flu shots I had ever received, and that it was administered 

unusually high up on my shoulder. She responded brusquely, saying ‘that is where the 

deltoid muscle is.’ I subsequently learned that she was incorrect.” Id.

IV. Analysis

A Petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the factual 

circumstances surrounding his claim. § 13(a)(1)(A). Under that standard, the existence 

of a fact must be shown to be “more probable than its nonexistence.” In re Winship, 397 

U.S. 358, 371 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). 

In Porzio v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17-1996V, 2019 WL 5290837 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 12, 2019), Respondent argued that there was insufficient evidence 

that the petitioner’s vaccine was administered intramuscularly. In that case, the vaccine 

administration record stated that the vaccine was injected into petitioner’s left deltoid. Id. 

at *3. The prescribing information for the vaccine indicated that it was for intramuscular 

use and should not be administered intravenously, intradermally, or subcutaneously. Id. 

At a medical appointment, Petitioner reported that the bandage from the vaccination was 

high on her arm near the bursa, consistent with the left deltoid injection site recorded on 

the vaccine administration record. Id. Petitioner, a nurse practitioner, averred that she 

was sitting when the vaccine was administered despite asking to stand which makes it 

easier to correctly place an intramuscular injection. Id. Based on this evidence, the 

special master in Porzio found that there was preponderant evidence that Petitioner had 

received an intramuscular flu vaccination. Id. 

In this case, like Porzio, Petitioner’s vaccine administration record indicates that 

Petitioner’s vaccine was administered into his left deltoid, a muscle. Pet. Ex. 1 at 1; see, 

e.g., Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (32nd ed. 2012) at 484 (defining deltoid as 

“triangular in outline, as the deltoid muscle”). Petitioner further reported to his physical 

therapist that the flu shot was given in his upper shoulder area instead of his lateral, or 

side, deltoid. Pet Ex. 2 at 1. Petitioner’s affidavit also indicates that the vaccine 

administrator told him that the vaccine administration site was where his deltoid was. Pet. 

Ex. 6 at ¶ 1. As in Porzio, these pieces of evidence all support a finding that the vaccine 

was administered intramuscularly high into Petitioner’s left deltoid. And there is no 

 

3 The record demonstrates that Petitioner also sought care for his left shoulder injury on numerous other 

occasions. 
4

evidence that would suggest that Petitioner’s October 25, 2017 flu vaccine was 

administered by a route other than intramuscularly, such as intradermally. 

V. Conclusion

In light of the evidence indicating that the vaccine was administered 

intramuscularly, and the lack of evidence supporting any other route of administration, I 

find that it is more likely than not, and thus there is preponderant evidence, that 

Petitioner’s October 25, 2017 flu vaccine was administered intramuscularly into his left 

deltoid. 

Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: Respondent shall file, by no later than 

Monday, December 23, 2019, either his Rule 4(c) report or a status report indicating 

how he intends to proceed in this case. At a minimum, the status report shall indicate 

whether he is willing to engage in tentative discussions regarding settlement or proffer or 

is opposed to negotiating at this time. In the event Respondent wishes to file a Rule 4(c) 

report, he may propose a date for filing it, but shall indicate his position on entering into 

negotiations regardless of whether he wishes to file a Rule 4(c) report. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master