ARKIE TUCKER-CORLEY, 

 Petitioner,

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: July 22, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Causation-In-Fact; Influenza (Flu) 

Vaccine; Chronic Regional Pain 

Syndrome (CRPS)

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On December 8, 2020, Arkie Tucker-Corley 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 alleged that he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

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

13, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within 

the United States, 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. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 7-9. 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 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).

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-1797V 

UNPUBLISHED
2

On July 12, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case for chronic regional pain syndrome 

(“CRPS”).

3 Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent indicates that 

Petitioner does not meet the Table criteria for a SIRVA because her injury 

was not limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was 

administered. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). However, the facts of this case 

support a finding that petitioner more likely than not suffered CRPS,4 that 

was caused-in-fact by the administration of the flu vaccination on January 

13, 2020. With respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, the record 

shows that the case was timely filed, that petitioner received a vaccine set 

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, and that the vaccine was received in the 

United States. The evidence also demonstrates that petitioner suffered the 

effects or sequelae of her injury for more than six months after vaccine 

administration. Accordingly, in light of the information contained in 

3 Petitioner’s counsel confirmed via informal communication on July 22, 2022 that Petitioner is amenable 

to proceed with the concession for the injury of CRPS, as opposed to SIRVA. 

4 Respondent indicates

[t]he diagnostic criteria for CRPS are as follows:

1. Continuing pain, which is disproportionate to any inciting event.

2. Must report at least one symptom in three of the four following categories:

• Sensory: reports of hyperesthesia and/or allodynia;

• Vasomotor: reports of temperature asymmetry and/or skin color

changes and/or skin color asymmetry;

• Sudomotor/edema: reports of edema and/or sweating changes and/or

sweating asymmetry;

• Motor/trophic: reports of decreased range of motion and/or motor

dysfunction (weakness, tremor, dystonia) and/or trophic changes (hair,

nail, skin).

3. Must display at least one sign at time of evaluation in two or more of the

following categories:

• Sensory: evidence of hyperalgesia (to pinprick) and/or allodynia (to light

touch and/or deep somatic pressure and/or joint movement);

Vasomotor: evidence of temperature asymmetry and/or skin color

changes and/or asymmetry;

• Sudomotor/edema: evidence of edema and/or sweating changes and/or

sweating asymmetry;

• Motor/trophic: evidence of decreased range of motion and/or motor

dysfunction (weakness, tremor, dystonia) and/or trophic changes (hair,

nail, skin).

4. There is no other diagnosis that better explains the signs and symptoms.

R. Norman Harden et al., Validation of proposed diagnostic criteria (the

“Budapest Criteria”) for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914601/ (last visited on July 7,

2022).

Respondent’s Report at 7-8, n. 3 (emphasis in original). 
3

petitioner’s medical records, respondent has concluded that petitioner’s 

CRPS is compensable as a “caused-in-fact” injury under the Vaccine Act.

Id. at 7-8. 

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