Case Information
*1 In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-2011V Chief Special Master Corcoran MARY CARAFOS, Filed: December 8, 2025 Petitioner, v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES
[1] On December 6, 2024, Mary Carafos 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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered to her on December 8, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 18, 2025, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 20. On December 8, 2025, Respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded *2 $105,000.00 in pain and suffering and $980.21 in past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1-2, ECF No. 24. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. See id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $105,980.21 for pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision. [3] IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master *3 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS MARY CARAFOS,
Petitioner, No. 24-2011V (ECF) v. Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On December 6, 2024, Mary Carafos (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza vaccine that she received on December 8, 2022. ECF No. 1 at 1. On August 14, 2025, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) report indicating that this case was appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Vaccine Act for a SIRVA Table Injury. ECF No. 18. On August 18, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF No. 20. I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $105,000.00 for pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses pertaining to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $980.21. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following: a lump sum payment of $105,980.21, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.
Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division *5 VORIS E. JOHNSON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Benjamin P. Warder BENJAMIN P. WARDER Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Telephone: (202) 532-5464 DATE: December 8, 2025 Email: Benjamin.P.Warder@usdoj.gov
3
[1] Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision 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 (2018).
[3] Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
[1] Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2