In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1961V

UNPUBLISHED

MARA CORTER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: October 18, 2019

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Findings of Fact; Onset; Influenza 

(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(SIRVA)

Summer Pope Abel, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT1

On December 15, 2017, Mara Corter 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (SIRVA) as a result of a flu vaccine administered on September 26, 2016. 

Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters.

For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder injury 

related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.

 1 This ruling will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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. Because this unpublished ruling 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). 

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

Specifically, Petitioner suffered symptoms manifested by pain immediately upon

vaccination.

I. Relevant Procedural History

Petitioner filed most of her medical records on December 28, 2017. See Exhibits

1-5. During the January 25, 2018 initial status conference, Respondent’s counsel 

identified potential missing records that could relate to the onset of Petitioner’s alleged 

SIRVA. On March 12, 2018, Petitioner submitted additional medical records and an 

amended statement of completion. ECF Nos. 13 and 14. On September 7, 2018, 

Respondent reported that he had reviewed the records filed by Petitioner and determined 

that he had sufficient information to provide a recommendation. ECF No. 23. Respondent 

also noted that he was interested in pursuing settlement negotiations. Id.

However, after several months of negotiation, on May 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a 

status report stating that “after good-faith negotiations, the parties now agree that the 

Chief Special Master will need to rule on Petitioner’s entitlement to vaccine compensation, 

particularly as to onset of Petitioner’s injury.” ECF No. 35. Respondent subsequently filed 

a Rule 4(c) Report on June 27, 2019. ECF No. 37. On that same date, Petitioner filed 

additional medical records. ECF No. 38. 

In a Scheduling Order filed July 17, 2019, former Chief Special Master Nora Beth 

Dorsey (who was presiding over the case at the time) reported that she had reviewed the 

record and determined that an onset hearing was not necessary. ECF No. 41. She also 

noted that because this ruling relates to a discrete factual issue, party briefs were not 

necessary. Id. The parties were allowed the opportunity to submit additional evidence 

relevant to onset, and Petitioner was instructed to file a supplemental affidavit. Id. 

Pursuant to the scheduling order, Petitioner subsequently submitted additional records 

and a supplemental affidavit on September 26 and September 27, 2019. ECF Nos. 43-

44. 

II. Issue

At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after 

vaccine administration was within 48 hours as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. 42 

C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination). Additionally, the Qualifications 

and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA requires that a petitioner’s pain occur 

within this same time frame, 48 hours. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).

III. Authority

Pursuant to Vaccine Act § 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act 
3

§ 11(c)(1). A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of 

an injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even 

though the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was 

incorrectly recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Vaccine Act § 13(b)(2). 

“Such a finding may be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the onset [of the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described 

in the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. 

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. Vaccine 

Act § 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.” Curcuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

IV. Finding of Fact

I make the findings in this ruling after a complete review of the record, including all 

medical records, affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4 Report, and additional evidence filed. 

Specifically, I base the finding on the following evidence:

• Ms. Corter received an influenza vaccine in her left deltoid on September 

26, 2016. Ex. 1; Ex. 2 at 2, 28.

• Petitioner did not have a history of left shoulder pain or injury. ECF No. 37.

• Petitioner reports that following the vaccination, her arm “became sore right 

away.” Ex. 6. In her supplemental affidavit, Petitioner noted that her 

shoulder “started to ache immediately with the injection itself.” Ex. 43.

• At a visit with her primary care physician (PCP) on November 8, 2016, 

Petitioner complained of left shoulder pain “due to recent immunization 

injection.” Ex. 2 at 64.

• On January 6, 2017, Petitioner reported to her PCP she had been having 

local tenderness and persistent discomfort over the lateral left arm area 

“after having had flu vaccination.” Ex. 2 at 109, 113. Physical examination 

revealed tenderness over the lateral aspect of the left shoulder and the PCP 

referred Petitioner to physical therapy. Id. 

• Petitioner attended a physical therapy session on January 16, 2017, at 

which time she reported that her arm had been sore “ever since” receiving 

the flu vaccination on September 26, 2016. Ex. 3 at 3. 
4

• On July 3, 2017, Petitioner presented to Dr. Michael Comstock, an 

orthopedic surgeon, at which time she reported acute discomfort in the “left 

shoulder upper arm region” after her September 26, 2016 flu vaccination. 

Ex. 5 at 4. Dr. Comstock noted that “given the time course of her pain postinjection, it is certainly possible that some of the injection reached the 

subacromial/subdeltoid bursa.” Id. at 8. 

• At a physical therapy visit on October 9, 2018, Petitioner reported left 

shoulder pain “due to a flu shot 2 years ago.” Ex. 13 at 7.

• In an affidavit dated November 9, 2017, Petitioner reported that after her flu 

shot on September 26, 2016, “[her] arm became very sore almost right 

away.” Ex. 6 at 1. 

• In a supplemental affidavit dated September 26, 2019, Petitioner reported 

that after her flu vaccination on September 26, 2016, her left arm and 

shoulder started to ache “immediately” and “within an hour, [it] was so sore 

that it hurt to move [her] arm.” Ex. 17 at 1. She also reported that “over the 

next couple days, the pain continued to get worse, not better.” Id.

• Maxwell Wlodarczak, Petitioner’s son, submitted a declaration dated 

September 26, 2019, in which he reported a telephone conversation with 

his mother where she complained pain and stiffness in her shoulder days 

after receiving a flu shot. Ex. 18 at 1. 

The affidavits of Petitioner and the declaration of her witness are consistent with 

the medical evidence; therefore, I find the information contained therein credible. As such, 

I find preponderant evidence that petitioner’s manifestation of onset after influenza 

vaccine administration occurred within 48 hours of September 26, 2016. 

V. Scheduling Order

Given my findings of fact regarding the onset of Petitioner’s pain, Respondent 

should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of petitioner’s case. 

Accordingly, Respondent shall file, by no later than Monday, December 2, 

2019, an amended Rule 4 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