1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1512V

PUBLISHED

TERRY PITTS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Terry Pitts, Evanston, IL, pro se petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

On September 28, 2018, petitioner, Terry Pitts, filed a petition under the National 

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012),2 alleging that he 

suffered “injuries, including Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration 

(“SIRVA”)” resulting from adverse effects of his October 8, 2016 influenza (“flu”) 

vaccination. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that petitioner is 

not entitled to compensation. The key issue is the timing of onset of petitioner’s alleged 

post-vaccination shoulder injury.

1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it 

will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the document 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 the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it 

will be redacted from public access.

2 Within this decision, all citations to § 300aa will be the relevant sections of the Vaccine Act at 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-10-34. 

Special Master Horner

Filed: March 10, 2023

Reissued for Public Availability: April 

4, 2023

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (“SIRVA”); Table 

Injury; Cause-in-fact; Influenza (“flu”) 

vaccine; Denial; Onset
2

I. Applicable Statutory Scheme

Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, compensation 

awards are made to individuals who have suffered injuries after receiving vaccines. In 

general, to gain an award, a petitioner must make a number of factual demonstrations, 

including showing that an individual received a vaccination covered by the statute; 

received it in the United States; suffered a serious, long-standing injury; and has 

received no previous award or settlement on account of the injury. Finally – and the key 

question in most cases under the Program – the petitioner must also establish a causal 

link between the vaccination and the injury. In some cases, the petitioner may simply 

demonstrate the occurrence of what has been called a “Table Injury.” That is, it may be 

shown that the vaccine recipient suffered an injury of the type enumerated in the 

“Vaccine Injury Table,” corresponding to the vaccination in question, within an 

applicable time period following the vaccination also specified in the Table. If so, the 

Table Injury is presumed to have been caused by the vaccination, and the petitioner is 

automatically entitled to compensation, unless it is affirmatively shown that the injury 

was caused by some factor other than the vaccination. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A); § 300 aa11(c)(1)(C)(i); § 300aa-14(a); § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). 

As relevant here, the Vaccine Injury Table lists a Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration or “SIRVA” as a compensable injury if it occurs within 48 hours

of administration of a vaccination. § 300aa-14(a) as amended by 42 CFR § 100.3. 

Table Injury cases are guided by statutory “Qualifications and aids in interpretation” 

(“QAIs”), which provide more detailed explanation of what should be considered when 

determining whether a petitioner has actually suffered an injury listed on the Vaccine 

Injury Table. 42 CFR § 100.3(c). To be considered a “Table SIRVA,” petitioner must 

show that his injury fits within the following definition: 

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 . . . . 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;
3

(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 CFR § 100.3(c)(10). 

Alternatively, if no injury falling within the Table can be shown, the petitioner may

still demonstrate entitlement to an award by showing that the vaccine recipient’s injury 

or death was caused-in-fact by the vaccination in question. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(A); 

§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii). To so demonstrate, a petitioner must show that the vaccine 

was “not only [the] but-for cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing 

about the injury.” Moberly ex rel. Moberly v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 

1315, 1322 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shyface v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 

165 F.3d 1344, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Pafford v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 

451 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In particular, a petitioner must show by 

preponderant evidence: (1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and 

the injury; (2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was 

the reason for the injury; and (3) a showing of proximate temporal relationship between 

vaccination and injury in order to prove causation-in-fact. Althen v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

For both Table and Non–Table claims, Vaccine Program petitioners must 

establish their claim by a “preponderance of the evidence”. § 300aa-13(a). That is, a 

petitioner must present evidence sufficient to show “that the existence of a fact is more 

probable than its nonexistence . . . .” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322 n.2. Proof of medical 

certainty is not required. Bunting v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 867, 873 

(Fed. Cir. 1991). However, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award 

based solely on his assertions; rather, the petition must be supported by either medical 

records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-13(a)(1). Once a 

petitioner has established their prima facie case, the burden then shifts to respondent to 

prove, also by preponderant evidence, that the alleged injury was caused by a factor 

unrelated to vaccination. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278 (citations omitted); § 300aa13(a)(1)(B). 

In this case, petitioner stresses that he suffered a left-sided shoulder injury 

consistent with a SIRVA Table Injury. (ECF No. 43, p. 1.) Alternatively, petitioner 

asserts that reliable medical evidence supports a non-Table shoulder injury caused-infact by his vaccination. (Id. at 6.) 

II. Procedural History

At the time the case was filed, petitioner was represented by counsel. He did not 

become a pro se petitioner until January 25, 2023. (ECF No. 55.) This case was 

initially assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) for expedited resolution based 

on the allegations of the petition. (ECF No. 5.) Over several months, petitioner filed 

evidence, including medical records, affidavits, and a letter by a treating physician, 
4

marked as Exhibits 1-9. (ECF Nos. 7, 9, 11.) Respondent then advised as of August 5, 

2019, that he intended to defend the case and later filed his Rule 4(c) Report setting 

forth his view of the case on October 4, 2019. (ECF Nos. 17, 20.) Respondent 

primarily raised the issue that petitioner’s medical records did not support a timing of 

onset compatible with a Table injury of SIRVA. He additionally raised that without an 

expert report the medical records were inadequate to support a cause-in-fact shoulder 

injury claim. (ECF No. 20, pp. 6-9.)

Subsequently, the Chief Special Master issued an order advising that “I intend to 

issue a fact finding as to the onset of petitioner’s alleged injury after providing the 

parties an opportunity to file any further evidence they wish to have considered. 

Because this ruling relates to a discrete factual issue, party briefs are not necessary.” 

(ECF No. 21.) However, the Chief Special Master allowed the parties time to file either 

additional evidence and/or memoranda regarding onset. (Id.) Petitioner subsequently

filed a Statement of Completion without filing any additional evidence and neither party 

filed any brief. The Chief Special Master issued his finding of fact on April 29, 2020.

(ECF No. 25.) The Chief Special Master concluded there is evidence to support onset 

occurring one week post-vaccination, but not preponderant evidence of onset occurring 

within 48-hours of vaccination. (Id. at 8.)

Following the finding of fact, petitioner filed an amended petition to explicitly 

assert an alternative claim based in causation-in-fact (ECF No. 29), along with an expert 

report by orthopedist Uma Srikumaran, M.D. (ECF No. 28; Exs. 10-17.) At that point, 

the Chief Special Master removed the case from the SPU and it was reassigned to 

Special Master Roth. (ECF Nos. 30-31.) Respondent advised that he would continue 

to defend the case (ECF No. 35) and he filed a responsive expert report by orthopedist 

Paul Cagle, M.D., on February 3, 2021 (ECF No. 36; Ex. A-B). Petitioner then filed a 

further report by Dr. Srikumaran responding to Dr. Cagle’s report. (ECF No. 37; Exs. 

18-24.) Respondent was provided an opportunity to file a further expert report but 

declined. (ECF No. 38.)

Initially, petitioner requested a hearing (ECF No. 39); however, petitioner 

subsequently filed a joint status report on behalf of the parties opting instead to proceed 

to a ruling on the existing record without a hearing (ECF No. 40). Petitioner filed his 

motion for a ruling on the record on July 30, 2021. (ECF No. 43.) Respondent filed a 

response on September 28, 2021. (ECF No. 46.) Petitioner filed his reply on October 

5, 2021. (ECF No. 47.) In his motion, petitioner argued both that his claim can prevail 

based on a one-week onset under a causation-in-fact theory and that the Chief Special 

Master’s prior fact finding should be revisited by the presiding special master such that 

a Table SIRVA claim may still be viable. (ECF No. 43.) 

Subsequently, however, on May 2, 2022, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for 

an award of interim attorneys’ fees and costs as well as a motion to withdraw as 

attorney of record. (ECF Nos. 49-50.) In the motion to withdraw, petitioner’s counsel 

represented that “petitioner and his counsel have developed irreconcilable differences 

as to how to best advance the prosecution of his petition.” (ECF No. 50, p. 1.) Special 
5

Master Roth granted counsel’s motion to withdraw on January 25, 2023, and petitioner 

became a pro se petitioner.3 (ECF No. 55.)

Shortly thereafter, this case was reassigned to the undersigned on February 2, 

2023. (ECF Nos. 58-59.) On February 3, 2023, I issued a scheduling order setting forth

the procedural history of the case and explaining the case has “since been reassigned 

to the undersigned and I intend to resolve the case expeditiously. However, although 

the case has already been briefed for a ruling on the existing record, petitioner’s

counsel’s withdrawal based on irreconcilable differences with petitioner raises a 

question as to whether the case remains ripe for resolution.” (ECF No. 62, pp. 1-2.) I 

advised the parties that I intend to rule on petitioner’s pending motion for a ruling on the 

record as soon as practicable, but afforded the parties a period of two weeks to notify 

me of any objection to my acting on the pending motion. (Id. at 2.) No objection was 

raised by either party. 

I have determined that the parties have had a full and fair opportunity to present 

their cases and that it is appropriate to resolve this issue without a hearing. See

Vaccine Rule 8(d); Vaccine Rule 3(b)(2); Kreizenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 945 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that “special masters must 

determine that the record is comprehensive and fully developed before ruling on the 

record.”). Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for resolution.

III. Factual History

Petitioner was 42 years old at the time of the vaccination at issue. There is no 

indication that he had any prior contributory medical history. (ECF No. 46, p. 2 (citing 

Ex. 1, p. 1; Ex. 2, pp. 25-26; Ex. 3, pp. 18-19).) Petitioner presented to his primary care 

physician, Kyong Christopher Oh, M.D., on October 8, 2016, for a general adult exam

and, it appears, to establish care.4 He received the flu vaccination at issue at this 

encounter. It was administered in his left deltoid. (Ex. 1; Ex. 3, p. 19.) Petitioner was 

directed to follow up in four weeks regarding his prescriptions. (Ex. 3, pp. 18-19.)

In his affidavit, petitioner states that he experienced immediate upper arm pain 

after being vaccinated. (Ex. 7, p. 1.) He indicates he called Dr. Oh’s office later that 

day to complain of his ongoing pain. (Id.) He also indicates that during the same call 

he requested that an unrelated prescription be sent to Sam’s Club Pharmacy. (Id.) Dr. 

Oh’s medical records do not include any record of a call from petitioner, though the 

body of records does otherwise have telephone encounter records. There is a record of 

a call from Sam’s Club Pharmacy on October 14, 2016, indicating that they had not 

received necessary prescriptions. (Ex. 3, p. 17.) Petitioner’s wife also signed an 

affidavit stating that she recalled discussing petitioner’s arm pain with him as of the 

morning after the vaccination. (Ex. 6.) She states that the pain began the day of the 

vaccination. (Id.)

3 Former counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs remains pending.

4 The record indicates petitioner had recently moved to the area from Alabama. (Ex. 3, p. 18.)
6

Petitioner’s medical records suggest that he returned to Dr. Oh approximately 

one month later. However, the records present a confusing picture of when exactly that 

follow up occurred, because the records purport to show that he followed up on both 

November 5, 2016, and November 7, 2016, which is highly unlikely. Based on the 

record as a whole, it appears most likely that petitioner had only one check up with Dr. 

Oh in early November of 2016, most likely on November 7. A medical record of 

November 7, 2016, indicates petitioner is “[d]oing well here for checkup – medications 

going well without side effect . . . Due for Rx today.” (Ex. 3, p. 13.) This is consistent 

with what his prior October 8 record suggested was the purpose of his follow up. The 

encounter record for November 5, 2016, indicates more vaguely that the reason for 

appointment was “1 month f/u.” (Id. at 15-16.) That record is also identified as a 

checkup. (Id.) The November 5 record contains no instruction for petitioner to follow up 

again in two days and the November 7 record includes no notation to suggest petitioner 

had been seen just two days prior. (Id. at 13-16.) Nothing in either medical record 

otherwise indicates any reason why petitioner would be seen twice in the span of two 

days for a routine follow up regarding his ongoing medications. Whereas the record of 

the November 7, 2016, encounter has an electronic signature by Dr. Oh matching the 

date of the encounter (Id. at 14), Dr. Oh’s electronic signature on the November 5, 

2016, encounter record is dated March 14, 2018 (Id. at 15). Both records confirm 

petitioner should continue his medications; however, there is more detailed discussion 

regarding petitioner’s conversations with Dr. Oh in the November 7 record. (Compare,

Ex. 3, p. 13 and, id. at 15.) In any event, both records include the same physical 

examination and review of systems notations, though only the November 7 encounter 

recorded petitioner’s vital signs. (Ex. 3, pp. 13, 15.) Physical exam of the extremities 

was limited to noting no edema. The review of systems for musculoskeletal is limited to 

noting “joint pain denies” in both records. (Id. at 13, 16.) 

There is no indication within either record that petitioner’s shoulder was 

discussed. Petitioner’s affidavit indicates, however, that he discussed his shoulder pain 

with Dr. Oh at the November 7 encounter. (Ex. 7, p. 1). Additionally, two later letters by 

Dr. Oh have been filed in this case. (Exs. 5, 9.) The first letter dated October 4, 2018, 

indicates that Dr. Oh does recall that on November 7, 2016, petitioner reported to him 

that he had been having left shoulder pains. (Ex. 5.) In a later letter dated January 24, 

2019, Dr. Oh clarifies that “[d]uring an appointment in early November 2016, [petitioner] 

mentioned to me that he was having shoulder pain that began immediately after he 

received his flu vaccine on 10/08/2016.” (Ex. 9.) Neither Dr. Oh nor petitioner ever 

reference an appointment occurring November 5, 2016. (Exs. 5, 7, 9.)

Petitioner did not seek care again until February 21, 2017. (Ex. 3, pp. 10-11.) A 

telephone record of February 20, 2017, suggests that the appointment was prompted by 

the need to renew one of his prescriptions, which as a controlled substance required a 

follow up appointment; however, when petitioner presented the next day the history of 

present illness indicated that he complained of “some pains in the left arm,” further 

noting that “he does total gym but is finding it difficult to do much exercise.” (Compare

Ex. 3, p. 10 and, id. at 12.) Despite presenting with a complaint of shoulder pain, 

petitioner’s documented physical exam was still limited to noting that he had no edema 
7

in his extremities and his review of systems still recorded “joint pain denies” under 

musculoskeletal. (Ex. 3, p. 10.) Petitioner was assessed with “left shoulder pain” and 

referred to an orthopedist. (Id. at 10-11.)

Petitioner then saw orthopedist Steven Levin, M.D., the next day. (Ex. 4, p. 8.) 

At that time he provided a history “complaining of left shoulder pain for 4 months after 

he got a flu shot in October. He said it specifically started after he got a flu shot.” (Id.) 

Petitioner complained of “discomfort in and around the biceps area and into the 

shoulder, pain with overhead activity, pain at night.” (Id.) Additionally, “he had some 

instances of mild numbness and tingling, but that since dissipated, no weakness in the 

arm.” (Id.) Physical exam indicated his neck was non-tender and with full range of 

motion. (Id. at 9.) Spurling’s and Lhermitte’s tests were both negative.5 Physical exam 

of the shoulder indicated “basically full painless range of motion” with mild pain at the 

extremes of forward flexion along with “mildly positive” Neer and Hawkins tests.6 (Id.) 

Several additional tests were negative. (Ex. 4, p. 9.) X-rays were negative. (Id.) Dr. 

Levin’s impression was bursitis. (Id.) He further indicated that he has had prior patients 

he believed to have had inflammatory bursitis due to flu vaccinations penetrating the 

bursa. (Id.) He then added “that is my diagnosis at this juncture in time.” (Id.) Dr. 

Levin recommended conservative treatment, including physical therapy. (Id.)

Petitioner subsequently presented for a physical therapy evaluation on March 14, 

2017. (Ex. 4, pp. 71-74.) At that time he reported that he “[r]ecieved flu shot in fall 2016 

and about 1 week later noticed soreness in L lateral arm . . . Progressively has been 

worsening and increased area of pain.” (Id. at 71.) The pain was characterized as 

intermittent and sharp, 7/10 at worst, and aggravated by several activities involving the 

lifting of the arm as well as working out. The pain was described as lateral shoulder 

5 A Spurling test tests for the presence of cervical radiculopathy where “the examiner presses down on 

the top of the head while the patient rotates the head laterally and into hyperextension; pain radiating into 

the upper limb ipsilateral to a rotation position of the head indicates radiculopathy.” Spurling test, 

DORLAND’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY ONLINE, 

https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=112983&searchterm=Spurling%20test (last 

accessed Mar. 1, 2023). The Lhermitte sign is “the development of sudden, transient, electric-like shocks 

spreading down the body when the patient flexes the head forward; seen mainly in multiple sclerosis but 

also in compression and other disorders of the cervical cord.” Lhermitte sign, DORLAND’S MEDICAL 

DICTIONARY ONLINE, 

https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=106344&searchterm=Lhermitte%20sign (last 

accessed Mar. 1, 2023). 

6 A Hawkins-Kennedy test is a test used in the evaluation of orthopedic shoulder injury. “A positive 

Hawkins-Kennedy test is indicative of an impingement of all structures that are located between the 

greater tubercle of the humerus and the coracohumeral ligament.” Hawkins-Kennedy test, WIKIPEDIA, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkins%E2%80%93Kennedy_test (last accessed Mar. 1, 2023). A Neer 

impingement test is a test designed to reproduce symptoms of rotator cuff impingement “through flexing 

the shoulder and pressure application.” Neer Impingement Test, WIKIPEDIA, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neer_Impingement_Test (last accessed Mar. 1, 2023). In a Neer’s test, 

symptoms should be reproduced “if there is a problem with the supraspinatus or biceps brachii.” Id. 
8

pain initially that spread to the top of the shoulder and into axilla.7 Petitioner reported 

that he had been able to use 50-pound dumbbells on his Total Gym system, but was 

currently unable to use that system for working out. (Id.) The objective assessment 

showed normal cervical range of motion without exacerbation when tested, although 

petitioner reported left side tightness with some maneuvers. (Id. at 72.) Petitioner had 

reduced range of shoulder movement and his Hawkins test was positive. (Id.) Six 

weeks of physical therapy was recommended. (Id. at 73.) 

Petitioner attended five further physical therapy sessions during March of 2017. 

(Ex. 4, pp. 75-85.) During that time, petitioner reached out to Dr. Oh by telephone on 

March 22, 2017, to discuss his shoulder pain. (Ex. 3, p. 9.) He indicated that he was 

still having pain despite his therapy. (Id. at 8.) Dr. Oh sent a message to Dr. Levin 

recommending that petitioner follow up with him for further recommendation. Dr. Oh 

included an addendum in his record that “I also made it clear to patient that his shoulder 

pain is not the result of the flu shot he received on 10/8/16.” (Id.) Subsequently, on 

March 30, 2017, petitioner’s physical therapist likewise concluded that petitioner had 

made no significant progress and that the referring physician should reevaluate the 

need for further physical therapy. (Ex. 4, pp. 84-85.)

Petitioner returned to Dr. Levin on April 3, 2017. (Ex. 4, p. 25.) In addition to 

findings relative to his shoulder, Dr. Levin also observed that:

he has numbness and tingling going down his arm as well as radicular type 

pain. This all started after a flu injection. He may have developed some 

adhesive capsulitis due to protecting his shoulder from the pain of a flu shot 

and/or he might have developed some radiculopathy, it is difficult to discern. 

(Id.) Dr. Levin recommended an EMG as well as an MRI of both the neck and shoulder. 

(Id. at 26.)

An EMG/NCV study was conducted on April 6, 2017, to rule out cervical 

radiculopathy, plexopathy, and/or carpal tunnel syndrome. (Ex. 4, pp. 21-23.) The 

study was interpreted as “essentially normal.” (Id. at 22.) The cervical spinal MRI was 

conducted on April 13, 2017. It found disc protrusion at C5-C6, but without evidence of 

extrinsic compression of the cervical spinal cord. (Id. at 24.) Petitioner’s left shoulder 

MRI of the same date showed no rotator cuff or labral tear, but edema around the 

glenohumeral ligament and rotator cuff interval consistent with adhesive capsulitis. (Id. 

at 20.) Petitioner returned to Dr. Levin on April 17, 2017, to review his results. (Id. at

33-34.) Based on his review of the test results, Dr. Levin recommended that petitioner 

7 “[T]he pyramidal region of the upper limb between the upper thoracic wall and the shoulder, its base 

formed by the skin and apex bounded by the approximation of the clavicle, coracoid process, and first 

rib[.]” Axilla, DORLAND’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY ONLINE, 

https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=5152&searchterm=axilla (last accessed Mar. 1, 

2023). 
9 

follow up with a cervical spine specialist, but also recommended a steroid injection for 

his shoulder and that he continue “aggressive” therapy for adhesive capsulitis.8 (Id.)

 

Petitioner had one further encounter with Dr. Oh on May 20, 2017, before 

establishing care with a new primary care provider, Emily Andrew, M.D., on July 15, 

2017. (Ex. 3, pp. 5-6; Ex. 4, p. 41-42.) The May 20th encounter with Dr. Oh was a 

three-month checkup. The record documents petitioner’s left shoulder pain in the 

assessments but is otherwise uninformative. (Ex. 3, p. 5.) (As with the November 5, 

2016 encounter, this record is electronically signed as of March 14, 2018.) When 

petitioner presented to Dr. Andrew, the fact of his ongoing orthopedic treatment for left 

shoulder pain was documented, but the appointment appears to have focused more 

heavily on his diabetes management. (Ex. 4, pp. 41-42.) Petitioner declined a physical 

therapy referral. (Id. at 42.)

On August 31, 2017, petitioner underwent an employment related health 

screening. (Ex. 8.) He completed a questionnaire that marked “no” for any prior neck 

or back problems and “no” for any “[b]one, muscle, joint, or nerve problems.” (Id. at 3.) 

A physical examination checked “normal.” (Id. at 4.) However, the extent of the 

physical exam is not indicated. (Id.) No further records were filed. Both petitioner and 

his wife indicate in their affidavits, both signed in December of 2018, that petitioner has 

experienced ongoing symptoms up to that point. (Ex. 7, p. 2 (“[t]hroughout this whole 

ordeal I have been in tremendous pain . . . .”); Ex. 6, p. 1 (“[t]o this day, [petitioner] has 

yet to fully recover from receiving the vaccine”).

IV. Expert Reports

a. Petitioner’s Initial Expert Report by Orthopedist Uma Srikumaran, 

M.D., MBA, MPH9

8 The same day petitioner once again contacted Dr. Oh’s office by phone and requested information 

regarding the vaccine had head received on October 8, 2016. (Ex. 3, p. 7.) The office reportedly told 

petitioner that his vaccination had been administered correctly and “had nothing to do” with his shoulder 

pain. (Id.)

9 Dr. Srikumaran serves as an associate professor in the Shoulder Division at the Johns Hopkins School 

of Medicine and serves as the Shoulder Fellowship Director and Chair of Orthopaedic Surgery for the 

Howard County General Hospital. (Ex. 10, p. 1.) He also serves as the Medical Director of the Johns 

Hopkins Musculoskeletal Service Line in Columbia, Maryland. (Id.) Each year Dr. Srikumaran sees 

approximately 2500-3000 patients for shoulder issues and performs 400-500 shoulder surgeries annually. 

(Id.) He has treated approximately ten to twelve patients with shoulder dysfunction after vaccination in 

the past five years. (Id.) Dr. Srkumaran received his medical degree from Johns Hopkins School of 

Medicine in 2005. (Ex. 11, p. 1.) He completed his orthopaedic residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital and 

completed a shoulder surgery fellowship at Massachusetts General Hospital. (Id.) Dr. Srikumaran is 

board certified in orthopaedic surgery. (Id. at 10.) He peer reviews journal articles for several 

orthopaedic journals including The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Orthopedics, Clinical Orthopedics 

and Related Research, and The Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. (Ex. 10, pp. 1-2.) Dr. 

Srikumaran was selected to serve on the Shoulder and Elbow Content Committee for the American 

Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery. (Id.) 
10

Dr. Srikumaran indicates that there is scientific literature available to demonstrate 

that “injection of a vaccine antigen into the subacromial bursa [can lead] to a ‘robust 

local immune and inflammatory response’ leading to pathology of the subacromial 

space, biceps tendon, glenohumeral joint, and capsulitis.” (Ex. 10, p. 5 (citing Marko 

Bodor & Enoch Montalvo, Vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction, 25 VACCINE 585 

(2007) (Ex. 14); S. Atanasoff et al., Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration 

(SIRVA), 28 VACCINE 8049 (2010) (Ex. 12)).) Further to this he cites experimental 

evidence that he indicates shows the plausibility of inflammation caused by immune 

mediated response to antigenic material. (Id. (citing D.C. Dumonde & L.E. Glynn, The 

production of arthritis in rabbits by an immunological reaction to fibrin, 43(4) BRIT. J.

EXP. PATHOL. 373 (1962) (Ex. 15); C. Trollmo et al., Intra-articular immunization induces 

strong systemic immune response in humans, 82 CLIN. EXP. IMMUNOL. 384 (1990) (Ex. 

17)).) In that regard, Dr. Srikumaran stresses that petitioner “consistently and reliably” 

reported post-vaccination shoulder pain to his treating physicians culminating in a 

diagnosis of bursitis. (Id. at 6-7.) To the extent petitioner was later diagnosed with 

adhesive capsulitis after failing physical therapy, he further opines that adhesive 

capsulitis is also consistent with SIRVA. (Id. at 7.) Dr. Srikumaran feels confident that 

cervical radiculopathy was ruled out by the treating physicians after a normal EMG/NCS 

and that there are no reports to suggest that petitioner had any history of other shoulder 

conditions that would explain his symptoms. (Ex. 10, pp. 6-7.) Noting that petitioner 

reported onset of his shoulder pain occurring within one week of vaccination, he opines 

that this is appropriate timing. (Id.) Dr. Srikumaran cites a review paper that he 

indicates provides support for a latency for SIRVA-like shoulder injuries of up to two 

months post-vaccination. (Id. at 5 (citing L.H. Martin Arias, Risk of bursitis and other 

injuries and dysfunctions of the shoulder following vaccinations, 35 VACCINE 4870 

(2017) (Ex. 13)).)

b. Respondent’s Expert Report by Orthopedist Paul J. Cagle, M.D.10

Dr. Cagle stresses that when petitioner first sought care from Dr. Levin on April 3, 

2017, he presented with a mixed picture of “signs of bursitis as well as signs of radicular 

pain.” (Ex. A, p. 4.) He noted that Dr. Levin felt the clinical picture was unclear, 

recommending both further evaluation of the cervical spine and a steroid injection to the 

shoulder. (Id.) Further to this, Dr. Cagle does not view petitioner’s shoulder MRI results 

10 Dr. Cagle serves an as assistant professor and Associate Program Director in the Department of 

Orthopaedic Surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. (Ex. A, p. 1.) He is a member of 

the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and a faculty member of an internationally recognized 

shoulder surgery fellowship. (Id.) His current practice focuses on the shoulder, representing 95% or 

more of the patients and pathology he treats. (Id.) Dr. Cagle conducts clinical, biomechanical, and basic 

science research. (Id.) He has presented scientific work nationally and internationally; and has published 

over twenty articles related to shoulder injuries and surgery. (Ex. B, pp. 11-12.) Dr. Cagle is a peer 

reviewer for the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, Techniques in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, and the 

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. (Id. at 13.) He received his medical degree from Loyola 

University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine in 2008. (Id. at 2.) Dr. Cagle completed his orthopaedic 

residency at the University of Minnesota Academic Health center and Medical School. (Id.) He also 

completed a shoulder and elbow fellowship at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and is board certified in 

orthopaedic surgery. (Id.) 
11

as supporting SIRVA because they do not show an increase in bursal fluid. (Id.) 

Moreover, Dr. Cagle indicates that the MRI results and physical exam are in contrast 

regarding the shoulder pathology at issue. He suggests that the MRI shows

inflammation of the inferior glenohumeral ligament, which is consistent with adhesive 

capsulitis, while the physical exam of February 22, 2017, demonstrated no loss of 

motion, which is incompatible with adhesive capsulitis. (Id.) In contrast, he stresses 

that the cervical spine MRI showed protrusion of the neural foramen of the left C5-6 

nerve. Thus, Dr. Cagle appears to suggest that it is the cervical spine MRI rather than 

the shoulder MRI that evidences an acute explanation for petitioner’s condition. Dr. 

Cagle charges that Dr. Srikumaran’s explanation of the MRI findings is selective. (Id. at 

4-5.) Dr. Cagle contends that the literature cited by Dr. Srikumaran is inapposite due to 

the lack of evidence of a shoulder-based etiology for petitioner’s condition and also that 

the literature is unpersuasive in itself because it does not establish a mechanism to 

support the association it seeks to present between vaccination and shoulder 

dysfunction. (Id. at 5-6.)

c. Petitioner’s Supplemental Expert Report by Dr. Srikumaran

In response to Dr. Cagle’s assessment of the clinical history, Dr. Srikumaran 

stresses that the April 3, 2017, encounter discussed by Dr. Cagle was not Dr. Levin’s 

first examination of petitioner and that on February 22, 2017, Dr. Levin opined after 

physical examination that petitioner had bursitis that he attributed to the vaccination. 

(Ex. 18, p. 1.) Dr. Srikumaran agrees that cervical radiculopathy was within the 

differential diagnosis, but disagrees regarding Dr. Cagle’s assessment that the cervical 

etiology is more likely. He stresses that the April 3, 2017, physical examination 

demonstrated reduced range of motion, crepitus, and positive Neer and Hawkins tests. 

These are consistent with shoulder pathology whereas the same exam shoed a nontender neck exam with full range of motion and a negative Spurling’s test, all of which 

are inconsistent with cervical radiculopathy. (Id. at 2.) Dr. Srikumaran notes that Dr. 

Levin was concerned regarding radicular pain as well as numbness and tingling down 

the arm but suggests that radiating pain is not incompatible with SIRVA or adhesive 

capsulitis. (Id.) Dr. Srikumaran again stresses that petitioner’s shoulder MRI was 

consistent with adhesive capsulitis and disagrees that the February 22, 2017, physical 

exam is in conflict with that finding, suggesting the “mild pain on extremes of forward 

flexion” is consistent with early signs of adhesive capsulitis while more advanced signs 

of adhesive capsulitis are documented in later records. (Id.) Dr. Srikumaran also

provided an expanded discussion of his opinion with regard to general causation, 

adding citations to a number of additional publications. (Id. at 3-7.) Among those 

additional citations, Dr. Srikumaran added a discussion of a study by Hesse, et al., that

demonstrates a statistically significant risk of bursitis following vaccination. (Id. at 6 

(citing Elisabeth Hesse et al., Risk for subdeltoid bursitis after influenza vaccination, 173 

ANN. INTERN. MED. 253 (2020) (Ex. 21).)

V. Discussion

a. Timing of Onset
12

As a threshold matter, petitioner has specifically requested in his motion that the 

presiding special master revisit the Chief Special Master’s finding of fact regarding 

onset. (ECF No. 43, p. 3 (requesting that the currently presiding special master 

independently evaluate onset).) Respondent offered no competing argument in his 

motion response. Although I ultimately have reached the same result as the Chief 

Special Master, revisiting the basis for my finding of fact in the interest of completeness 

is advisable for three reasons. 

First, the fact finding of a previously assigned special master is not binding upon 

a subsequently presiding special master. Godfrey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 

2015 WL 10710961, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 27, 2015) (noting that “[g]enerally,

special masters may change or revisit any ruling until judgment enters, even if the case 

has been transferred.”); see also Hanlon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 40 Fed.Cl. 

625, 630 (1998), aff’d, 191 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (special masters are not bound 

by their own or other special masters’ decisions). Second, petitioner correctly notes that 

subsequent Federal Circuit authority at least raises a question as to elements of the 

Chief Special Master’s analysis. (ECF No. 43, p. 4.) In particular, the Chief Special 

Master cited Sanchez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, for the proposition 

that a series of three linked propositions regarding the manner in which people seek 

healthcare favors a presumption in favor of contemporaneous medical records. (ECF 

No. 25 (citing 11-685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013), 

vacated on other grounds, Sanchez by & through Sanchez v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 809 Fed.Appx. 843 (Fed. Cir. 2020).) Subsequent to the issuance of this fact 

finding, however, the Federal Circuit in Kirby v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 

specifically rejected these propositions as a misreading of prior precedent.11 997 F.3d 

1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). And, third, based on my evaluation of the record as a 

whole, I do not necessarily agree that petitioner sought care twice in November of 2016, 

a point that partly underlies the fact finding.

As petitioner suggests in his motion, the Federal Circuit has observed that 

“[a]lthough a patient has a ‘strong motivation to be truthful’ when speaking to his 

physician, that does not mean he will report every ailment he is experiencing, or that the 

physician will accurately record everything he observes.” Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1383.

Furthermore, it has also previously been observed that “[m]edical records are only as 

accurate as the person providing the information.” Parcells v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., No. 03-1192V, 2006 WL 2252749, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2006). 

And, importantly, “the absence of a reference to a condition or circumstance is much 

less significant than a reference which negates the existence of the condition or 

11 In Kirby the Federal Circuit discussed a different decision, Robi versus Secretary of Health & Human 

Services, that relied on the same series of propositions in evaluating contemporaneous medical records. 

As the Federal Circuit discussed it in Kirby, the Robi decision concluded that these propositions 

supported a presumption that contemporaneous medical records are both complete and accurate. Kirby, 

997 F.3d at 1382-83. It is that presumption that the Federal Circuit ultimately rejected as going beyond 

the prior suggestion in Curcuras that contemporaneous medical records can carry significant weight. Id. 

Here, the Chief Special Master did not explicitly rely on a presumption that the contemporaneous medical 

records were complete. 
13

circumstance.” Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 23 Cl.Ct. 726, 733 (1991) 

(quoting the decision below), aff’d per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The 

Murphy Court also observed that “[i]f a record was prepared by a disinterested person 

who later acknowledged that the entry was incorrect in some respect, the later 

correction must be taken into account.” Murphy, 23 Cl.Ct. at 733.

I perhaps find less significance than did the Chief Special Master in the fact that 

petitioner’s complaint of shoulder pain was not documented during his treatment with 

Dr. Oh in November of 2016. (See Ex. 3, pp. 13-16.) For the reasons discussed in the 

factual history above, I conclude it is more likely that the medical records reflect only 

one encounter at that time, rather than the two encounters discussed in the Chief 

Special Master’s fact finding. Thus, this was not likely a repeated omission. Moreover, 

Dr. Oh has indicated, albeit much more remotely, that his original record was not 

complete with respect to petitioner’s complaint of shoulder pain. (Exs. 5, 9.) Although 

the November encounter records also purported to indicate in a review of systems that 

petitioner denied any musculoskeletal complaints, this same notation was also included 

in Dr. Oh’s February 21, 2017, record wherein petitioner specifically presented with a 

complaint of left shoulder pain. (Compare Ex. 3, p. 10 with, Ex. 3, p. 13 and, Ex. 3, p. 

16.) Thus, I am not persuaded it is a reliable notation. Accordingly, I do not consider 

Dr. Oh’s November 2016 body of medical records to be strong evidence regarding 

whether petitioner was experiencing shoulder pain at that time.

Significantly, however, the one time during his course of treatment when the 

onset of petitioner’s shoulder pain was reported with specificity, petitioner told his 

physical therapist on March 14, 2017, that he experienced pain “about 1 week” after his 

vaccination. (Ex. 4, p. 71.) Petitioner also associated his pain to his vaccination on 

other occasions, but none of these records include enough specificity to contradict his 

specific report of pain beginning one-week post-vaccination. (Ex. 4, p. 8 (noting onset 

four months prior and “after” flu vaccine); Ex. 4, p. 41 (“started after flu injection.”). Nor 

is there any contemporaneous record to support petitioner’s recollection that he called 

Dr. Oh’s office the day of his vaccination despite the fact that Dr. Oh’s office otherwise 

regularly created records of his calls. Although Dr. Oh’s later letter provides some 

evidence to suggest petitioner reported the onset of his pain as occurring “immediately” 

after his vaccination (Ex. 9), the March 14, 2017, history provided to the physical 

therapist remains the earliest recollection in evidence on this record regarding the 

specific onset of petitioner’s shoulder pain. When a treating physician offers a 

statement that is not contemporaneous to events and is not within the context of 

diagnosis and treatment, a special master may conclude that it is not entitled to the 

same weight as contemporaneous medical records. See Milik v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 822 F.3d 1367, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Based on my own independent review of the complete record, I conclude that

there is not preponderant evidence that onset of petitioner’s shoulder pain began within 

48-hours of vaccination. Further to this finding, I also conclude that the evidence 

preponderates in favor of onset occurring within one-week post-vaccination. 
14

b. Table SIRVA

As explained above, there is not preponderant evidence that onset of petitioner’s 

alleged shoulder injury occurred within 48 hours of his vaccination. This defeats 

petitioner’s Table injury claim for the reasons discussed in Section I, above. See 42 

CFR § 100.3(c)(10)(ii). 

c. Causation-in-fact

For the reasons discussed below, the one-week post-vaccination onset in this 

case is singularly fatal to petitioner’s claim on this record. As discussed under Althen

prong one below, petitioner is persuasive in establishing that the flu vaccine can in 

general cause shoulder injuries of the type reflected in his medical records and, as 

discussed under Althen prong two, Dr. Levin and Dr. Srikumaran demonstrate that 

petitioner likely did suffer shoulder pathology in addition to his suspected cervical spinal 

degeneration. However, as discussed under Althen prong three, Dr. Srikumaran is 

unpersuasive on this record in seeking to extend the necessary causal inference as far 

out as a full week post-vaccination. 

i. Althen prong one

Petitioner is required to present a persuasive medical theory of causation 

demonstrating that the influenza vaccine could have caused his shoulder condition. 

Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. It is well-established in the Vaccine Program that 

compensation may be awarded for shoulder injuries on a cause-in-fact basis. See, e.g., 

A.P. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-784V, 2022 WL 275785 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Jan. 31, 2022); L.J. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-0059V, 2021 WL 

6845593 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 2, 2021); Tenneson v. Sec'y of Health & Human 

Servs., No. 16-1664V, 2018 WL 3083140 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2018), rev. 

den., 142 Fed. Cl. 329 (2019). However, petitioner’s medical theory must be supported 

by “reputable” scientific evidence and must “pertain[] specifically to the petitioner’s 

case.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322. 

Petitioner may not merely rely on the fact that SIRVA was added to the Vaccine 

Injury Table to establish a medical theory for a cause-in-fact claim. Grant v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (Fed. Cir. 1992).12 The government’s 

12 In Grant, the Federal Circuit explained the distinction between Table and non-Table claims and quoted 

the legislative history of the Vaccine Act as follows:

If the petitioner sustained or had significantly aggravated an injury not listed in the Table, 

he or she may petition for compensation. If the petitioner sustained or had significantly 

aggravated an injury listed in the Table but not within the time period set forth in the Table, 

he or she may petition for compensation. In both these cases, however, the petition must 

affirmatively demonstrate that the injury or aggravation was caused by the vaccine. Simple 

similarity to conditions or time periods listed in the Table is not sufficient evidence of 

causation; evidence in the form of scientific studies or expert medical testimony is 

necessary to demonstrate causation for such a petitioner. (Such a finding of causation is 

deemed to exist for those injuries listed in the Table which occur within the time period set 

forth in the Table.) 
15

recognition of “SIRVA” as a vaccine-caused injury was limited by the accompanying QAI 

criteria. In this case, I have already concluded for the reasons discussed above that 

petitioner has not met those criteria. Thus, if petitioner’s medical theory under Althen

prong one was limited to taking judicial notice of the government’s recognition of 

SIRVAs as occurring in some contexts, petitioner’s case would necessarily have to fail 

under Althen prong two, because the facts of petitioner’s case do not fall within the 

confines of that recognition. Accord L.J., 2021 WL 6845593 (taking judicial notice of the 

Table Injury of SIRVA under Althen prong one and applying the Table SIRVA QAI as 

the basis for assessing Althen prong two); Tenneson, 2018 WL 3083140 (same). To 

hold otherwise would be to expand the causal presumption afforded by the Vaccine 

Injury Table. 

Here, Dr. Srikumaran opined that vaccine antigens injected into synovial tissue 

can cause a “prolonged immune-mediated inflammatory reaction.” (Ex. 10, p. 5 (citing 

Atanasoff et al., supra, at Ex. 12.) To support this contention, Dr. Srikumaran offered 

several medical articles examining post-vaccination shoulder pain. In particular, the 

Atanasoff study found an association between vaccination and shoulder injury based on 

the subjects’ lack of prior shoulder symptoms and rapid onset of pain following 

vaccination. (Atanasoff et al., supra, at Ex. 12, p. 8051.) The Atanasoff authors 

surmised that an immune-mediated inflammatory reaction induced by the vaccine 

caused the subjects’ shoulder symptoms. (Id.) Given that there is no diagnostic test 

available to determine whether shoulder dysfunction is vaccine-caused, the Atanasoff 

authors emphasized the importance of evaluating clinical presentation in identifying 

post-vaccination shoulder injuries. (Id. at 8052.) Dr. Srikumaran’s theory is further 

supported by the Bodor and Montalvo case reports that found that injection into the 

subdeltoid bursa likely caused “a robust local immune and inflammatory response.” 

(Bodor & Montalvo, supra, at Ex. 14, p. 586.) Bodor and Montalvo concluded that 

“[g]iven that the subdeltoid bursa is contiguous with the subacromial bursa, [the 

injection] led to a subacromial bursitis, bicipital tendonitis, and inflammation of the 

shoulder capsule.” (Id.) 

Further to this, Dr. Srikumaran also presented the Hesse et al., study which 

confirms an epidemiological risk of post-vaccination bursitis. The study examined 

nearly three million people who received the 2016-2017 seasonal flu vaccine and 

looked for incidences of subdeltoid bursitis diagnosed within 180 days of vaccination. 

(Hesse et al., supra, at Ex. 21, p. 253.) The Hesse et al. authors “identified a small risk 

for subdeltoid bursitis with new symptom onset after injection of an influenza vaccine.” 

(Id. at 259.) The Hesse et al. study specifically demonstrated bursitis as a statistically 

significant epidemiological finding rather than simply a clinical observation. (See id.) 

Grant, 956 F.2d at 1147-48 (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 908, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, at 15 (1986), 

reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6344, 6356) (emphasis in Grant); see also Schick-Cowell v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., 18-656V, 2022 WL 619839 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 8, 2022); A.P., 2022 WL 

275785; but see L.J., 2021 WL 6845593 (taking judicial notice of the Table Injury of SIRVA under Althen

prong one for case filed prior to inclusion of SIRVA on the Vaccine Injury Table, but decided after); 

Tenneson, 2018 WL 3083140 (same).
16

Taken together, the literature offered by Dr. Srikumaran supports the theory that the flu 

vaccine can cause bursitis via post-vaccination inflammation. 

In general, primary adhesive capsulitis, as opposed to secondary adhesive 

capsulitis, “is a specific pathologic entity in which chronic inflammation of the capsule 

subsynovial layer produces capsular thickening, fibrosis, and adherence of the capsule 

to itself and to the anatomic neck of the humerus.” (Andrew Neviaser & Robert 

Neviaser, Adhesive Capsulitis of the shoulder, 19 J. AM. ACAD. ORTHROP. SURG. 536, 

536 (2011) (Ex. A, Tab 9).) Thus, the SIRVA body of literature includes adhesive 

capsulitis among the conditions encompassed by this framework of post-vaccination 

shoulder injury phenomena. For example, one of the case report subjects in the abovediscussed Bodor & Montalvo article suffered adhesive capsulitis. (Bodor & Montalvo, 

supra, at Ex. 14, p. 586.) Additionally, a study of the clinical characteristics of 476 

SIRVA cases conceded by the government in this program showed that 5.5% of cases 

carried an initial diagnosis of adhesive capsulitis. (Hesse et al., Shoulder Injury Related 

to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA): Petitioner claims to the National Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program, 2010-2016, 38 VACCINE 1076, 1079 (Table 4) (2020) (Ex. 20)).) 

Although respondent disputes that petitioner has satisfied Althen prong one, I 

note that several petitioners in this Program have successfully relied upon on the same

body of literature where the undersigned has awarded compensation in cause-in-fact 

shoulder claims. E.g., Kelly v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1918V, 2022 

WL 1144997, at *22 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 24, 2022); Colbert v. Sec'y of Health & 

Human Servs., No. 18-166V, 2022 WL 2232210, at *18 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 27, 

2022); Layne v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-57V, 2022 WL 3225437, at *18 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 12, 2022). 

Accordingly, petitioner has offered a reputable causal theory sufficient to meet 

his burden under Althen prong one. 

ii. Althen prong two

The second Althen prong requires proof of a logical sequence of cause and 

effect showing that the vaccine was the reason for the injury, usually supported by facts 

derived from a petitioner's medical records. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; Andreu ex re. 

Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1375–77 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 

Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2006); 

Grant, 956 F.2d at 1148. However, medical records and/or statements of a treating 

physician do not per se bind the special master to adopt the conclusions of such an 

individual, even if they must be considered and carefully evaluated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§300aa-13(b)(1) (providing that “[a]ny such diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, test result, 

report, or summary shall not be binding on the special master or court”); Snyder v. Sec'y 

of Health & Human Servs., 88 Fed.Cl. 706, 746 n.67 (2009) (“there is nothing . . . that 

mandates that the testimony of a treating physician is sacrosanct—that it must be 

accepted in its entirety and cannot be rebutted”). 
17

Here, there is a significant issue with respect to Althen prong three that also 

prevents petitioner from demonstrating a logical sequence of cause and effect under 

Althen prong two. That issue is discussed separately below. Setting that issue aside 

arguendo, there is otherwise no question that when petitioner first sought orthopedic 

care, his treating orthopedist (Dr. Levin) felt he was suffering bursitis caused by an 

inflammatory response to vaccination. (Ex. 4, p. 9.) He later added adhesive capsulitis 

to his impression, which he further suggested could be related sequela. (Id. at 25.) 

This opinion accounted for two physical examinations as well as subsequent MRI 

findings. Moreover, Dr. Levin’s stated rationale is entirely consistent with Dr. 

Srikumaran’s theory under Althen prong one. However, respondent raises two issues. 

First, he contends that Dr. Cagle should be viewed as more persuasive in interpreting 

petitioner’s history as consistent with a cervical spinal issue. (ECF No. 46, p. 17.) 

Second, he suggests that Dr. Levin’s causal opinion was not definitive while petitioner’s 

primary care provider repeatedly asserted that the vaccination had been administered 

properly. (Id. at 19.) Neither of these arguments is persuasive.

While Dr. Cagle raises some reasonable points with respect to the possibility of a 

cervical spinal condition being present, he is not persuasive in further suggesting that 

this possibility renders petitioner’s diagnosed shoulder pathology unlikely. While a

cervical spinal issue can sometimes be the better explanation for a clinical presentation 

that includes shoulder pain, the presence of cervical spinal degeneration does not 

preclude the presence of an additional shoulder injury. Prior petitioners have 

succeeded where their treating physicians diagnosed a shoulder injury in the presence 

of unrelated cervical spinal degeneration. Compare Colbert v. Sec'y of Health & Human 

Servs., No. 18-166V, 2022 WL 2232210 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 27, 2022) and,

Layne v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 18-57V, 2022 WL 3225437 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. July 12, 2022) with Truett v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1772V, 2022 

WL 17348386 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 1, 2022). Here, Dr. Srikumaran is persuasive in noting 

that Dr. Levin’s physical examinations provided sufficient evidence to support his 

diagnosis of an orthopedic shoulder injury. Moreover, nothing in the medical records 

suggests that Dr. Levin ever felt that petitioner had a cervical condition to the exclusion 

of a shoulder pathology. Significant to this point is the fact that Dr. Levin continued to 

recommend “aggressive” therapy for adhesive capsulitis even while simultaneously 

recommending further investigation of petitioner’s cervical spine. (Ex. 4, pp. 9, 34-35.) 

Thus, respondent is not persuasive in suggesting that Dr. Levin’s diagnostic opinion 

was either tentative or rescinded following his review of the spinal MRI. Nor is the mere 

presence of some numbness and tingling dispositive. (Hesse et al., supra, at Ex. 20, p. 

1080 (Table 4) (indicating that 7.4% of conceded SIRVAs included tingling or 

paresthesia).)

Nor is Dr. Oh’s skepticism that petitioner’s injury could have been vaccine-related

controlling. The only reason Dr. Oh indicated for skepticism is the assertion that 

petitioner’s vaccine was correctly administered. (Ex. 3, p. 7.) However, that does not 

preclude a SIRVA. Petitioner has filed a study by Hesse, et al., evaluating the clinical 

characteristics of conceded SIRVA claims within this program. According to that paper, 

less than half of SIRVA cases include any alleged error in vaccine administration. 
18

(Hesse et al., supra, at Ex. 20, p. 1080.) Moreover, the literature cited by Dr. Cagle also 

suggests that, to the extent overpenetration is suspected as a contributing factor in 

SIRVA, needle penetration into the bursa may be attributable to needle length and 

anatomical diversity without the need for improper technique, explaining 

Current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines state that a 

1-inch needle depth is appropriate for most patients (except for persons 

>200 lbs or new-borns), which is a seemingly “one-size-fits-all” approach 

for an increasingly diverse population. A study of MRI deltoid fat pads by 

Lippert found that with using 5/8 inch, 7/8-inch, or 1/inch needles for 

intramuscular deltoid injections would cause 11% (16 of 150), 55% (83 of 

150), and 61% (92 of 150) of patients to experience overpenetration, 

respectively.

(Matthew Barnes et al., A “Needling” Problem: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration, 25(9) J. AM. BOARD FAM. MED. 919, 921 (2012) (Ex. A, Tab 2).) The 

authors characterize the argument for changing vaccination technique as “compelling.” 

(Id.) According to these authors, based on the 160 lbs documented during petitioner’s 

October 8, 2016 encounter, petitioner would have to have had his vaccination 

administered with a needle shorter than what the CDC typically recommends in order to 

ensure there was no overpenetration. (Id.; see Ex. 3, p. 18.) Thus, it is not necessary 

for petitioner to demonstrate any incorrect injection technique in order to demonstrate a 

logical sequence of cause and effect between his vaccination and his injury.

Accordingly, if not for the timing of onset that is fatal to petitioner’s claim, 

petitioner’s medical records coupled with Dr. Srikumaran’s additional supporting opinion 

would otherwise preponderantly establish a logical sequence of cause and effect 

between petitioner’s vaccination and his alleged shoulder injury.

iii. Althen prong three

The third Althen prong requires establishing a “proximate temporal relationship” 

between the vaccination and the injury alleged. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1281. That term 

has been equated to the phrase “medically-acceptable temporal relationship.” Id. A 

petitioner must offer “preponderant proof that the onset of symptoms occurred within a 

timeframe which, given the medical understanding of the disorder's etiology, it is 

medically acceptable to infer causation.” de Bazan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 

539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this case, Dr. Srikumaran is unpersuasive in 

suggesting that the medically acceptable timeframe during which vaccine causation of a 

shoulder injury can be inferred extends as far as two months post-vaccination. (Ex. 10, 

p. 5; Ex. 18, p. 5.) He is further unpersuasive in suggesting that the one-week postvaccination onset present in this case supports any inference of causation.

The two-month timeframe referenced by Dr. Srikumaran is derived from two 

outlier case reports in a study by Arias, et al., of prior reported cases of potential SIRVA. 

The Arias authors undertook a review of 67 prior medical articles and 13,717 reports of 

vaccine-related notifications from the Adverse Reaction Data of the Spanish 
19

Pharmacovigilance System or “FEDRA” to assemble a case series of 45 subjects. 

(Martin Arias et al., supra, at Ex. 13.) The authors assessed 37 cases from the 

published literature and 8 cases from FEDRA. Among the published cases, postvaccination onset ranged from immediate to three days. (Id. at 3 (Table 2).) Among the 

FEDRA cases, 6 of the 8 were noted to have had onset occurring within 7 days of 

vaccination. Out of all the cases reviewed by Arias, et al., only two cases from FEDRA 

had latencies beyond one-week post-vaccination and only one case had a latency of 

one week. (Id. at 3.) Moreover, nothing in the authors’ analysis specifically endorses a 

view that the cases involving longer latencies were vaccine-caused. Instead, the 

authors conclude that 48 hours is the likely relevant onset based on the majority of 

cases falling within that timeframe. (Id. at 1 (abstract).) 

In contrast, a statistical analysis also cited by Dr. Srikumaran examined cases of 

bursitis occurring within 180 days of vaccination and used the 60 days post-vaccination 

period as the background rate to find a statistically elevated risk of bursitis occurring 

within 3 days post-vaccination. (Hesse et al., supra, at Ex. 21.) Indeed, the literature as 

a whole suggests that a clear majority of vaccine-related shoulder injuries occur within 

48 hours of vaccination with some anecdotal evidence potentially supporting that onset 

may occur a few days later in a minority of cases. (See Atanasoff, et al., supra, at Ex. 

12, p. 8050 (one out of 13 cases occurred 4 days post-vaccination; Martin Arias et al., 

supra, at Ex. 13, p. 4872 (noting “6 in 8 FEDRA patients complained of increasing 

severity pain starting within the first 24 h or few days (4-7 days) post-vaccination.”); 

Hesse et al., supra, at Ex. 21, p. 253 (statistically significant elevated risk of bursitis in 

the first three days post-vaccination). 

Nor does the experimental evidence Dr. Srikumaran cites persuasively address 

the issue. While Trollmo, et al., sought to compare intra-articular injections to 

subcutaneous injections, it is not clear how those findings regarding systemic immune 

response would support the timing of onset in this case. (Trollmo et al., supra, at Ex. 

17.) Regardless of the measurements taken, all six of the subjects receiving intraarticular injections experienced temporary swelling and stiffness of the injected joint 

within two to four hours of vaccination. (Id. at 386.) Dumonde & Glynn is a study 

involving a rabbit model designed to examine rheumatoid arthritis. (Dumonde & Glynn, 

supra, at Ex. 15.) On this record, Dr. Srikumaran has not substantiated its relevance on 

the specific issue of timing of onset. While the study examined changes within injected 

joints over a period of weeks, it was not equipped to detect the onset of pain symptoms.

Dr. Cagle was also somewhat unpersuasive in that he urged “the accepted 48 

hour standard” without further explanation. (Ex. A, p. 6.) An issue that is evident in the 

body of SIRVA literature is that some of the larger studies treat the 48-hour onset as a 

threshold screening issue. For example, the 2019 study by Hesse, et al., examines 476 

cases of SIRVA that were conceded within this program. (Hesse et al., supra, at Ex. 20, 

p. 1076.) This provides valuable insight regarding variation in clinical characteristics 

among confirmed SIRVAs, but does not provide evidence regarding the full scope of 

what might reasonably constitute a SIRVA-like injury caused-in-fact by vaccination, 

because it is limited to cases conceded by the government and those concessions are 
20

governed by the QAI criteria now included on the Vaccine Injury Table, including the 

requirement of a 48 hour onset. Similarly, a study by Hibbs, et al., examined reports of 

shoulder injuries reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 

but only considered reports with onset occurring within 48 hours of vaccination. (Beth 

F. Hibbs et al., reports of atypical shoulder pain and dysfunction following inactivated 

influenza vaccine, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 2010-2017, 38 

VACCINE 1137 (2020) (Ex. 22).) Yet, strict adherence to a 48-hour onset as utilized by 

these studies is refuted by the Hesse, et al., study, which found a statistically significant 

elevation of risk for three days post-vaccination. (Hesse et al., supra, at Ex. 21.) In that 

regard, the Federal Circuit holding in Paluck v. Secretary of Health & Human Services 

cautions against setting “hard and fast deadline[s]” for onset. See 786 F.3d 1373, 1383-

84 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating that “[t]he special master further erred in setting a hard and 

fast deadline” for onset and noting that the medical literature filed in the case “do not 

purport to establish any definitive timeframe for onset of clinical symptoms.”). 

Nonetheless, petitioner bears the burden of proof on this point and, even without 

treating the 48-hour period as a bright line, there is little to no evidence on this record to 

specifically support a one-week latency as medically reasonable.

Balancing all of the above, I conclude on this record that petitioner has not 

satisfied Althen prong three based on a one-week post-vaccination onset. This is 

consistent with prior cases which have generally fallen into two categories. Several 

prior cases have denied entitlement to compensation where onset of shoulder pain 

occurred months post-vaccination. Nicholson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 

17-1416V, 2022 WL 14437541, at *25-26 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 22, 2022) (denying 

entitlement where onset of shoulder pain occurred between 32-49 days postvaccination); Clavio v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1179V, 2022 WL 

1078175, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 16, 2022) (denying entitlement where onset of 

shoulder pain was 59 days post-vaccination); Mack v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 

No. 15-0149V, 2016 WL 5746367, at * 10-11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 14, 2016)

(explaining that the 48-hour onset required by the Vaccine Injury Table does not 

preclude “a claim involving a later onset (even one that is substantially later)” but finding 

petitioner failed to demonstrate a six-month post-vaccination onset is medically 

reasonable to infer causation). On the other hand, several prior cases have suggested 

that onset falling outside of the 48-hour Table window but within less than one week

post-vaccination can support a cause-in-fact shoulder injury claim. Kuczarski v. Sec'y of 

Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0312V, 2023 WL 1777208, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Feb. 6, 2023) (dismissing Table SIRVA claim but noting that “a causation-in-fact injury 

claim might still be tenable, based on an onset occurring a week after vaccination.”); 

Murray v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1357V, 2022 WL 17829797 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. MStr. Oct. 27, 2022) (finding entitlement where onset of shoulder pain occurred 

within “a few days” and less than seven days post-vaccination); Jewell v. Sec'y of 

Health & Human Servs., No. 16-0670V, 2017 WL 7259139, at * 3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Aug. 4, 2017) (finding entitlement for shoulder injury occurring 72 hours postvaccination); but see C.C. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-708V, 2021 WL 

2182817 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 31, 2021) (finding onset of shoulder pain one-week 

post-vaccination did not satisfy Althen prong three because petitioner’s Althen prong 
21

one theory was based on the Vaccine Injury Table, which required a 48-hour onset); 

Porcello v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1255V, 2020 WL 4725507, at *9

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 22, 2020) (denying entitlement where petitioner failed to 

show onset “reasonably close” in time to vaccination where the only precise notation of 

onset indicated an 11-day latency).

VI. Conclusion

Petitioner has my sympathy for what he has endured. However, considering the 

record as a whole under the standards applicable in this Program, petitioner has not 

preponderantly established either that his October 8, 2016 flu vaccination resulted in a 

Table SIRVA or alternatively caused-in-fact a shoulder injury. Accordingly, petitioner is 

not entitled to compensation. Therefore, this case is dismissed.13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Daniel T. Horner

Daniel T. Horner

Special Master

13 In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review of this Decision, the Clerk of the Court shall enter 

judgment accordingly.