VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00990
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00990
Petitioner: Barbara Stoliker
Filed: 2017-07-21
Decided: 2020-09-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-09-30
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 121119

AI-assisted case summary:
Barbara Stoliker filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a right Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccination on September 30, 2014. Initially, the respondent opposed compensation, but later conceded that the petitioner met the criteria for SIRVA, a Table injury. A ruling on entitlement was issued on December 11, 2018. The case proceeded to determine damages. The petitioner sought $170,000.00 for pain and suffering, while the respondent proposed $110,000.00. The parties agreed on $1,119.77 for past unreimbursable expenses. The court considered the severity and duration of the petitioner's injury, including a significant treatment gap and surgical intervention. Ultimately, the court awarded Barbara Stoliker $120,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,119.77 for past unreimbursable expenses, for a total award of $121,119.77.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00990-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-12-19
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/09/2018) regarding 52 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-990V
Filed: November 9, 2018
PUBLISHED
BARBARA STOLIKER,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Finding of
Fact; Administration Site; Evidence
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND of Vaccination; Table Injury; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT – SPECIAL PROCESSING UNIT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 27, 2017, petitioner 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from her September 30, 2014 influenza (“flu”)
vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters. The undersigned now resolves factual disputes regarding the
site of administration of petitioner’s alleged injury-causing vaccination and the onset of
1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling 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, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is 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).

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 2 of 9
petitioner’s shoulder pain. For the reasons described below, the undersigned finds that
petitioner’s September 30, 2014 influenza vaccination was administered in her right
deltoid and that the onset of the shoulder pain allegedly resulting from that vaccination
occurred within 48 hours of vaccine administration.
I. Procedural History
On July 28, 2017, petitioner filed medical records marked as Exhibit 1 through 4
along with a statement of completion. (ECF Nos. 7-8.) On August 12, 2017, petitioner
filed transcribed records from one of her medical providers (Dr. Sands) as Exhibit 5 and
an affidavit as Exhibit 6. (ECF No. 9.)
Thereafter, an initial status conference was held with the staff attorney managing
this case on September 7, 2017. (ECF No. 10.) Respondent was allowed 60 days to file
a status report indicating how he intends to proceed. (Id.) However, citing high case
volume, budget constraints, and hiring restrictions, respondent asked for additional time
to determine his position on multiple occasions. (ECF Nos. 11, 15, 17.)
After six months, respondent advised on March 9, 2018, that he was willing to
consider a reasonable settlement demand. (ECF No. 19.) Petitioner had previously
presented respondent a demand for damages. (ECF No. 13.) However, settlement
discussions did not commence. On June 19, 2018, the parties filed competing status
reports explaining that respondent would not be responding to the demand because
respondent had determined that the medical records in the case include two vaccination
records which differ on the site of injection. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.)
Subsequently, on June 27, 2018, petitioner filed additional evidence. (ECF No.
34.) Specifically, petitioner filed a supplement affidavit (Exhibit 8) and a handwritten
note from a CVS pharmacy manager, Sam Bright, Pharm.D. (Exhibit 7). (Id.)
Respondent filed a motion for discovery seeking authorization to depose Dr. Bright
along with Raed Ahmed, a CVS employee identified in Dr. Bright’s note as the individual
whose handwritten initials appear on one of the two vaccination records filed in the
case. (ECF No. 33.)
The undersigned held a status conference on July 11, 2018. (ECF No. 37.) The
undersigned addressed both respondent’s motion for discovery and petitioner’s concern
that the case had been unreasonably delayed. (Id.) The undersigned granted
respondent’s motion for discovery, but time-limited the request due to respondent’s
delay in presenting the issue. (Id.) During the call, the parties agreed that Flores
Orlando, listed as the administering immunizer on petitioner’s vaccination record, would
also be deposed. (Id.) The undersigned also ordered respondent to file his Rule 4
report. (Id.)
Subsequently, respondent filed transcripts of the depositions of Raed Ahmed and
Samuel Bright as respondent’s Exhibits A and B respectively. (ECF No. 46.)
Respondent confirmed that he was unable to effectuate service of process upon Flores
Orlando and he was not deposed. (ECF No. 49, p. 3, n. 2.)
2

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 3 of 9
Respondent filed his Rule 4 report on August 27, 2018. (ECF No. 47.) In his
report, respondent indicated that petitioner has not met her burden to establish a table
injury of SIRVA because there is not preponderant evidence that she received her
vaccination in her right arm or that onset of her shoulder injury was within 48 hours of
vaccination. (ECF No. 47, p. 5.) Additionally, on August 31, 2018, respondent filed a
motion for a limited factual ruling. (ECF Nos. 47, 49.) In his motion, respondent
indicated that “[a] determination as to the arm in which petitioner received her
September 30, 2014 flu vaccination is a necessary factual predicate that will inform
further proceedings on this petition.” (ECF No. 49, p. 6.) Accordingly, respondent
requested that “based on the totality of the evidence, the Chief Special Master make a
finding as to the site of petitioner’s September 30, 2014 flu vaccination.” (Id.)
Petitioner filed a response to the motion on October 1, 2018. (ECF No. 50.)
Petitioner requested that the undersigned issue a ruling finding that petitioner received
her September 30, 2014 flu vaccine in her right arm and further finding that the onset of
her shoulder injury occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. (Id. at 2.)
Respondent filed no reply. Thus, this case is ripe for the undersigned’s finding of
fact.
II. Factual History
On September 30, 2014, petitioner received an influenza vaccination at a CVS
pharmacy. (Ex. 1; Ex. 2, pp. 2-3; Ex. 6, p. 1.) Petitioner averred that she received the
vaccination in her right arm and that it was “uncomfortable.” (Ex. 6, p. 1.) She further
indicated that by mid-day the following day her pain had increased to the point that she
could not lift her arm. (Id.) Approximately two weeks later on October 15, 2014,
petitioner was seen by her primary care physician, Dr. Sands, at which time she
complained of right shoulder pain “since receiving the flu shot at pharmacy on
9/30/2014.” (Ex. 2, p. 12; Ex. 5, p. 8.) Dr. Sands attributed petitioner’s shoulder pain to
her vaccination. (Id.) Petitioner subsequently returned to Dr. Sands on October 20,
2014, and December 15, 2014, continuing to complain of pain in the right shoulder “s/p”
– status post – injection. (Ex. 2, pp. 10-11.) In subsequent medical records, petitioner’s
right shoulder condition continued to be consistently attributed to her vaccination. (See,
e.g. Ex. 2, pp. 8, 9, 37; Ex. 3, p. 2.)
Nonetheless, two conflicting copies of petitioner’s vaccination record have been
filed. (Ex. 1; Ex. 2, pp. 2-3.) Petitioner’s medical records from Dr. Sands include a copy
of petitioner’s Vaccine Consent and Administration Record. (Ex. 2, pp. 2-3.) Contrary
to the above, it indicates petitioner received her vaccination in her left deltoid. (Id. at 3.)
Additionally, petitioner separately filed as Exhibit 1 a copy of her vaccination record that
she obtained herself. (Ex. 1; Ex. 8, p. 1.) That record indicates that petitioner’s
vaccination was administered in her right arm. (Ex. 1.)
Petitioner averred that she obtained the record at Exhibit 1 directly from the CVS
pharmacy on June 7, 2017. (Ex. 8, p. 1.) Upon reviewing the record, petitioner
determined that the record incorrectly indicated that petitioner had received her
vaccination in her left arm rather than her right arm. (Id.) She indicated that she
returned to the pharmacy “a few days later” and that Raed Ahmed, the pharmacy
3

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 4 of 9
manager, amended her record to correct the site of administration. (Id.) The vaccination
record at Exhibit 1 includes a handwritten notation striking out “left” deltoid as the site of
administration and writing in “right.” (Ex. 1.) This alteration is initialed “R.A.” (Id.)
Petitioner further averred that she again returned to the CVS pharmacy on June
22, 2018, after respondent raised an issue regarding her evidence of vaccination in this
case. (Ex. 8, p. 1.) At that time, she was informed by Samuel Bright that Mr. Ahmed no
longer worked at that CVS location. (Id.) However, Dr. Bright provided a handwritten
note authenticating Mr. Ahmed’s initials on petitioner’s vaccination form. (Ex. 8, pp. 1-2;
Ex. 7.)
In deposition testimony, Mr. Ahmed confirmed that he was the manager at the
CVS location where petitioner received her vaccination at the time she received her
vaccination. (Ex. A, pp. 10-11.) Mr. Ahmed explained that at CVS documentation of the
vaccinations administered, including the Vaccine Consent and Administration Record,
are generated at the beginning of the technician’s encounter with the patient. (Id. at 14-
15.) He indicated that these forms include a printed description of the site of
administration (left versus right deltoid). (Id. at 15-16.) Mr. Ahmed further explained that,
once collected, the electronic information cannot be changed or deleted at the
pharmacy level. (Ex. A, p. 17.) However, it is the normal practice at CVS to determine
the site of administration for a vaccination only after these forms have been generated.
(Id. at 22-23.) As a result, Mr. Ahmed testified that it is common for CVS vaccination
records to be altered by hand as to the site of administration. (Id. at 22-23, 27-28, 39-
40.) He indicated that it happens “quite often.” (Id. at 28.)
Mr. Ahmed did not recall petitioner or ever talking with her. (Ex. A, p. 16-18. 28-
29.) However, he indicated that the signature on her vaccination record is his own.3 (Id.
at 21.) He also authenticated his handwritten initials on the vaccination record and
confirmed that based on the record with his notation, he would have administered
petitioner’s vaccination in her right deltoid. (Id. at 23.) Mr. Ahmed testified that this
notation would have been made at the time of the vaccination and not subsequently.
(Ex. A, pp. 23-24, 32-33.) He testified that he would not have changed the record after-
the-fact even if asked. (Id. at 25, 32-34.)
Mr. Ahmed testified that the consent forms are not retained electronically, but
that a physical copy is stored on site at the pharmacy. (Ex. A, pp. 30-31, 42.) He
indicated that the pharmacy sometimes gets requests for records. (Id. at 35-36.)
Record requests from physicians’ offices are handled by the CVS Privacy Office and not
directly by the pharmacy. (Id.) Mr. Ahmed testified he is not familiar with that process.
(Id. at 36.) However, with regard to the additional, unaltered copy of petitioner’s
vaccination record contained in Dr. Sands’ records, Mr. Ahmed indicated that he is not
surprised that it exists. (Id. at 37-38.) He explained that at the beginning of the
encounter two copies of the document are produced, one for pharmacy records and one
for the vacinee to keep. (Id.) He reasoned, but could not confirm, that the additional
3 Despite the fact that Mr. Ahmed authenticated his own signature on the document, the vaccination lists
Orlando Flores as the administering immunizer. Mr. Ahmed indicated that the fact of his signature on the
document indicates that he certified that he had reviewed the form with petitioner and confirmed the lack
of any contraindication, but that he could not tell from the signature whether he or Mr. Flores administered
the vaccination. (Ex. A, pp. 21-22.)
4

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 5 of 9
copy is the patient copy and that he neglected to correct both copies of the form when
petitioner was vaccinated. (Id.)
Dr. Bright testified in deposition that he took over management of the CVS
location where petitioner was vaccinated in February or March of 2018. (Ex. B, p. 9.)
He indicated that he was Mr. Ahmed’s direct successor in the position. (Id.) He offered
testimony regarding storage of the vaccine consent forms consistent with the
description offered by Mr. Ahmed.4 (Ex. B, pp. 14-15.) Dr. Bright also testified that the
process for amending vaccine records to change the site of vaccination as described by
Mr. Ahmed is consistent with CVS policy. (Id. at 16-17.) He agreed that it is “not
uncommon,” estimating that it happens about ten percent of the time. (Id. at 21, 36.)
Dr. Bright recalled meeting petitioner on one occasion. (Ex. B, p. 17.) He
explained that petitioner came to the pharmacy and asked him to authenticate Mr.
Ahmed’s initials on her vaccine record. (Id. at 17-18.) He authenticated the handwritten
note filed at Exhibit 7. (Id. at 26.) He further testified that in his one meeting with
petitioner he had agreed that, to the best of his knowledge, the initials on the document
filed as Exhibit 1 were Mr. Ahmed’s. (Id. at 18, 26-27.) Dr. Bright indicated that his
authentication was based on his knowledge of Mr. Ahmed’s handwriting and that he
does not know when the notation was written. (Id. at 20, 22, 35.) He never spoke to Mr.
Ahmed about the record. (Id. at 26.) Dr. Bright disclaimed any knowledge of whether
the record was correct. (Id. at 26-29.) With regard to the additional, unaltered
vaccination record within Exhibit 2, Dr. Bright did not know how that would have come
into Dr. Sands’ possession. He indicated that the patient copy of the form would not be
an exact duplicate in that it would be blank, unlikely to have the immunizer’s signature
or the checkboxes completed. (Id. at 38-41.)
III. Party Contentions
In his motion for a finding of fact, respondent stresses the fact that petitioner’s
and Mr. Ahmed’s accounts regarding the alteration of the vaccine record are in conflict.
(ECF No. 49, p. 3.) While petitioner indicates the record was amended in June of 2017
(Ex. 8, p. 1), Mr. Ahmed testified that he only would have made the correction at the
time of the vaccination. (ECF No. 49, p. 3 (citing Ex. A, pp. 21-22).) Respondent also
cites Dr. Bright’s testimony that he believes the record within Exhibit 2 would have been
the original. (ECF No. 49, pp. 3-4.) Respondent stresses that both pharmacists testified
that they would not change a vaccination record after the fact because they would not
be able to recall the details. (Id.)
Respondent argues that “[a]side from the changed record, petitioner’s only
support for her allegation that the shot was administered in her right arm is her own
affidavit. Because the [Vaccine] Act prohibits a special master from finding in favor of
entitlement ‘based on the claims of petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records
or by medical opinion,’ 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1), petitioner must provide
4 Dr. Bright indicated, however, that he would fax a copy of a vaccine record directly to a physician’s
office. (Ex. B, p. 16.)
5

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 6 of 9
corroborating evidence to be entitled to compensation.”5 (ECF No. 49, p. 5.) In light of
the conflicting vaccination records, respondent contends there is not adequate proof
regarding the location of the vaccination. (Id. at 5.)
In his Rule 4 Report, respondent recommends against compensation in this
case. (ECF No. 47, p. 6.) Respondent identifies the same injection site issue discussed
in his motion as detrimental to petitioner’s case, suggesting that “the records do not
establish by preponderant evidence that the flu vaccination at issue was given in
petitioner’s right arm.” (Id. at 5.)
Additionally, respondent argues that “petitioner’s medical records do not
establish that she suffered the onset of her alleged vaccine-induced injury within 48
hours of her vaccination.” (ECF No. 47, p. 5.) Respondent notes that “[a]t her first
medical visit after receiving the flu vaccine, petitioner reported that her shoulder pain
began “since receiving the flu shot at pharmacy 9/30/14.” (Id. (citing Ex. 2, p. 12).)
Respondent characterizes such notations as offering “a relative time frame for the onset
of shoulder pain,” but argues that they “do not clearly demonstrate that petitioner’s
shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccine administration.” (ECF No. 47, p. 5.)
In response, petitioner argues that she explained the differing vaccine records in
her supplemental affidavit. (ECF No. 50, p. 5.) She further notes that, but for the timing
of the correction, her explanation is corroborated by Mr. Ahmed’s testimony
authenticating his notations on the vaccine record. (Id. at 6.) Petitioner further stresses
that her allegation that the vaccine was administered in her right shoulder is also
corroborated by her other medical records. (Id. at 7.) Petitioner disputes respondent’s
interpretation of the medical records as insufficient to place onset of petitioner’s
condition within 48 hours of her vaccination. (Id. at 8-9.) Petitioner contends that the
medical records are clear in indicating that petitioner’s pain began the day of her
vaccination and further stresses that based on petitioner’s report of pain since
vaccination, her physician attributed her condition to her vaccination. (Id.)
IV. Findings of Fact
Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating the facts necessary for entitlement to
an award by a “preponderance of the evidence.” § 300aa-12(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).
5 In fact, several prior decisions within this program have held that the fact of vaccination need not be
supported by medical records or opinion pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Vaccine Act. See, e.g.,
Centmehaiey v. HHS, 32 Fed. Cl. 612 (1995), aff’d 73 F.3d 381 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (stating that “[t]he lack of
contemporaneous, documentary proof of a vaccination, however, does not bar recovery.”); see also
Wonish v. HHS, No. 90-667V, 1991 WL 83959 (May 6, 1991) (Fed. Cl.) (stating that “[v]accination is an
event that in ordinary litigation could be established by lay testimony. Medical expertise is not typically
required.”); Woodson v. HHS, No. 91-263V, 1992 WL 59707 (Mar. 5, 1992) (Fed. Cl.) (finding that “the
petition should not be dismissed as a matter of law merely because there is no documentary evidence
that the vaccination took place and [petitioner] is the only witness claiming personal knowledge of the
vaccination. Her testimony on this point must be weighed in the context of the entire record.”). In any
event, as described below the undersigned has found significant evidence corroborating petitioner’s
allegation, including corroborating medical records.
6

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 7 of 9
a. Finding of Fact Regarding Injection Site
Upon review of the entire record and consideration of the parties’ briefing, the
undersigned finds that there is preponderant evidence that petitioner’s September 30,
2014 influenza vaccination was administered in her right deltoid. Contrary to
respondent’s argument, petitioner has filed substantial evidence that the vaccine was
administered in her right shoulder.
First, petitioner provided a vaccination record that so indicates. (Ex. 1.)
Moreover, the notation of a right shoulder administration on that record has been
authenticated by two individuals. (Ex A, p. 23; Ex. B, pp. 18, 26-27; Ex. 7.) And
significantly, both pharmacists testified that notations such as those appearing on
petitioner’s vaccination record are routine.6 (Ex. A, p.28; Ex. B, p. 21, 36.) Additionally,
based on that record, Mr. Ahmed testified that he administered the vaccination in
petitioner’s right shoulder. (Ex. A, p. 23.)
To the extent an additional unaltered record has been filed reflecting the left
shoulder, Mr. Ahmed explained that he likely amended only the pharmacy’s copy of the
record (Ex. A, p. 37-38), potentially explaining the discrepant records. The undersigned
does not find evidence in the record sufficient to explain how Dr. Sands obtained the
unaltered copy of the vaccine record.7 Additionally, although Dr. Bright offered
testimony opining on these questions, the undersigned does not find his testimony
useful in resolving this issue because he testified that he had no personal knowledge of
the accuracy of the records at issue in this case. (Ex. B, p. 26-29.)
Most significantly, however, petitioner’s contemporaneous treatment records
consistently attribute petitioner’s right shoulder injury to the vaccination she received on
September 30, 2018. This provides strong corroborating evidence that petitioner
received her vaccination in her right arm. See, e.g. Parker v. HHS, No. 15-1331V, 2016
WL 3443929 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2016)(finding that a vaccine record
recording administration in the left arm was incorrect based primarily on petitioner’s
consistent attribution of his right shoulder condition to his vaccination throughout his
treatment). Upon the undersigned’s review, petitioner linked her right shoulder
condition to her vaccination the very first time she sought treatment and the remainder
of petitioner’s medical records consistently link petitioner’s right shoulder condition to
6 Specifically, Mr. Ahmed characterized the practice as occurring “quite often” while Dr. Bright indicated
that it is “not uncommon.” (Ex. A, p. 28; Ex. B, pp. 21, 36.) Dr. Bright additionally estimated that it occurs
about ten percent of the time. (Ex. B, p. 36.)
7 There were some questions during the depositions suggesting that a date stamp bannered across the
top of the vaccine record at Exhibit 2, pages 2 and 3, may indicate that the record was faxed to Dr. Sands
on March 8, 2017. Respondent again noted this potential transmittal date in his motion for a finding of
fact. (ECF No. 50, p. 4, n. 3.) The undersigned notes, however, that this date stamp appears on all 51
pages of medical records from Dr. Sands’ office and is not unique to the vaccine record. Nor does the
date stamp indicate whether the fax was incoming or outgoing or even necessarily confirm that it is a fax
transmittal date. Thus, it does not appear that the date stamp reflects a time at which the vaccine record
was provided by fax to Dr. Sands. It likely suggests that Dr. Sands had the record in his possession no
later than March 8, 2017.
7

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 8 of 9
the same vaccination. The undersigned found no notation in any of petitioner’s
treatment records that is contrary or inconsistent on that point.
Moreover, the first of these treatment records was generated only two weeks
following the vaccination and long before petitioner reportedly returned to CVS to obtain
a copy of her vaccination record. Specifically, on October 15, 2014, Dr. Sands wrote,
not only that petitioner attributed her right shoulder condition to her vaccination, but also
explicitly that “Pt. received flu shot 9/30/14 in R deltoid.” (Ex. 2, p. 12; Ex. 5, p. 8.) For
this reason, the undersigned does not find the timing of the amendment to petitioner’s
vaccine record to be a significant issue. Petitioner’s consistent and contemporaneous
treatment records would provide preponderant evidence overcoming the contrary or
incorrect vaccination record (at Ex. 2, pp. 2-3) even in the complete absence of an
amended record by Mr. Ahmed (at Ex. 1).
b. Finding of Fact Regarding Onset
Upon review of the entire record and consideration of the parties’ briefing, the
undersigned finds that there is preponderant evidence that petitioner’s right shoulder
pain began within 48 hours of her vaccination. Respondent argues that petitioner’s
records are insufficient to establish that onset of petitioner’s condition was within 48
hours of vaccination; however, the undersigned disagrees.
As noted above, petitioner first sought treatment for her shoulder injury on
October 15, 2014, just a little over two weeks following her vaccination. (Ex. 2, p. 12;
Ex. 5, p. 8.) At that time, she presented with a chief complaint of “pain in R shoulder
since receiving flu shot at pharmacy 9/30/14.” (Id.) The undersigned disagrees with
respondent’s characterization of this notation as indicating “a relative time frame for the
onset of shoulder pain.” (ECF No. 47, p. 5.) To the contrary, the undersigned finds the
notation to be an explicit statement that petitioner’s shoulder pain began on September
30, 2014, which is within 48 hours of petitioner’s vaccination.
Moreover, even if the notation at issue did constitute only a “relative time frame,”
the undersigned would still find preponderant evidence that the onset of petitioner’s pain
was within 48 hours of vaccination. See, e.g. Cooper v. HHS, No. 16-1387V, 2018 WL
1835179, at *5, n. 13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 18, 2018)(noting with regard to
petitioner’s medical records that “the undersigned recognizes that many of these
records are imprecise regarding onset . . . It is sufficient that, petitioner’s vaccination
having occurred on October 30, the reported timeframe of early November reflected by
the record as a whole does encompass the 48 hour post-vaccination period.”). In this
case, there is no suggestion that petitioner’s history of onset was recorded in her
medical records verbatim; however, the history she provided was sufficient for her
physician to attribute her condition to her vaccination, characterizing it as an “adverse
effect flu shot.” (Ex. 2, p. 12; Ex. 5, p. 8.)
Additionally, petitioner averred that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of
vaccination, indicating that she was uncomfortable the day of her vaccination and that
her pain increased the next day. (Ex. 6, p. 1.) This is also further corroborated by
petitioner’s subsequent treatment records. Respondent has not contended that any of
8

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 58 Filed 12/19/18 Page 9 of 9
petitioner’s medical records suggest that onset was not within 48 hours. Nor has the
undersigned located any such record upon her own review.
V. Conclusion
In light of all of the above and in view of the record as a whole, the
undersigned finds (1) that petitioner’s September 30, 2014 influenza vaccination
was administered into her right deltoid and (2) that the onset of petitioner’s
alleged shoulder pain resulting from her vaccination began within 48 hours of the
administration of the September 30, 2014 influenza vaccination.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00990-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-01-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/11/2018) regarding 56 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 61 Filed 01/17/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-990V
Filed: December 11, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
BARBARA STOLIKER,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Table Injury;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 21, 2017, petitioner 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following receipt of her September 30, 2014 influenza (“flu”)
vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling 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, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is 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).

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 61 Filed 01/17/19 Page 2 of 2
Initially, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report recommending against compensation.
(ECF No. 47.) Subsequently, however, respondent moved for a fact ruling. (ECF No.
49.) The undersigned issued her findings of fact on November 9, 2018. (ECF No. 52.)
Respondent filed an amended Rule 4(c) report on December 10, 2018. (ECF No. 54.)
In his amended Rule 4(c) report, respondent indicated that:
Medical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs
(“DICP”), Department of Health and Human Services, have reviewed the
evidence filed in this case, as well as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law issued by the Chief Special Master. Recognizing that the Chief
Special Master’s factual finding that petitioner received a flu vaccination in
her right shoulder on September 30, 2014, is the law of the case, and further
finding that onset of the symptoms took place within 48 hours, respondent
advises that he will not defend the case on other grounds during further
proceedings before the Office of Special Masters. While preserving his right
to appeal the Chief Special Master’s November 9, 2018 Ruling on Facts,
respondent submits that petitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set
forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretation (“QAI”) for Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
(“SIRVA”).
(ECF No. 54, p. 2.)
Respondent further indicated that “based on the record as it now stands and
subject to his right to appeal the Ruling of Facts, respondent does not dispute that
petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-13.” (Id. at 6.)
In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00990-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-09-14
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/07/2020) regarding 92 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 98 Filed 09/14/20 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-0990V
UNPUBLISHED
BARBARA STOLIKER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 7, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 21, 2017, Barbara Stoliker 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 right Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered
on September 30, 2014. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award
of damages in the amount $121,119.77, representing compensation in the amount
of $120,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $1,119.77 for past unreimbursable
expenses.
1 Because this unpublished decision 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 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 98 Filed 09/14/20 Page 2 of 7
I. Relevant Procedural History3
As noted, this case was initiated in 2017. On August 27, 2018, Respondent filed a
Rule 4(c) report opposing compensation because there was not preponderant evidence
that Petitioner received her vaccination in the right arm or that onset of her shoulder injury
was within 48 hours of vaccination. ECF 47 at 5. Respondent also filed a motion for a
limited factual ruling to determine the arm in which Petitioner received her flu vaccination.
ECF 49. On November 9, 2018, former Chief Special Master Dorsey (to whom the case
was assigned at the time)4 issued a fact ruling finding that Petitioner’s flu vaccination was
administered in her right arm, and that onset of her condition occurred within 48 hours.
ECF 52. Respondent subsequently filed an amended Rule 4(c) report stating that “based
on the record as it now stands . . . [R]espondent does not dispute that [P]etitioner has
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” ECF 54. A ruling finding
Petitioner entitled to compensation was issued on December 11, 2018. ECF 56.
Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion to stay proceedings due to upcoming
shoulder surgery. ECF 63. After the stay was lifted, in June 2019, the parties attempted
to informally resolve the issue of damages but subsequently reported an impasse on the
amount of pain and suffering to be awarded (the sole disputed damages issue to be
resolved). ECF 72. After giving the parties an opportunity to file written briefs on this issue,
I scheduled this matter for an expedited hearing and ruling based upon all the evidence
filed to date and the parties’ briefing. ECF 91. The hearing was held on July 31, 2020.5
In her brief, Petitioner requests that I award her $170,000.00 for past and future
pain and suffering. ECF 83. Respondent proposes that I award the lesser amount of
$110,000.00. ECF 86. The parties do not dispute that $1,119.77 in actual unreimbursable
expenses should also be awarded.
II. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment award such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
3 I adopt the comprehensive procedural history set forth in ECF 52.
4 I was appointed Chief Special Master on October 1, 2019. This case was reassigned to me that same
day.
5 The transcript from the hearing has yet to be filed, but it is incorporated by reference herein
2

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 98 Filed 09/14/20 Page 3 of 7
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-
1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for
emotional distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a
mathematical formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 93-0172V,
1996 WL 300594, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and
suffering is inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when
determining an award for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity
of the injury; and 3) duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting
McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240
(Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Prior pain and suffering awards in comparable cases also bear on the resolution
herein. See, e.g., Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009)
(finding that “there is nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to
damages for pain and suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the
proper amount of damages in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own
experience (along with my predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar
claims.6 Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(noting that Congress contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated
expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
III. Appropriate Compensation in this SIRVA Case
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times, Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact her
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury. In so doing, I review the record as a whole to include the medical
records and affidavits filed and all assertions made by the parties in written documents
and at the expedited hearing held on July 31, 2020. I consider prior awards for pain and
suffering in both SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases and rely upon my experience in
adjudicating those cases.7 However, I ultimately base my determination on the
circumstances of this case.
6 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell.
For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims,
were assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019,
the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
7 Statistical data for all SIRVA cases resolved in SPU from inception through January 2020 as well as a
brief description of any substantive decisions can be found in the following decisions: Vinocur v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 17-0598V, 2020 WL 1161173 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2020); Wilt v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0446V, 2020 WL 1490757 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 24, 2020);
Smallwood v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0291V, 2020 WL 2954958 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 29, 2020).
3

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 98 Filed 09/14/20 Page 4 of 7
Petitioner’s SIRVA, plus her related treatment and recovery, was consistent with
that experienced by many other petitioners who also required surgery after their injury.
Approximately two weeks after receiving the flu vaccine on September 30, 2014,
Petitioner presented to her primary care provider (PCP) with complaints of right shoulder
pain “since receiving flu shot.” Ex 2 at 12. Physical examination (PE) revealed tenderness
to palpation (TTP) in the posterior deltoid. Id. After three months, Petitioner’s pain had not
resolved, and she was referred for physical therapy (PT), which she began in January
2015. Ex 2 at 37. During six PT sessions from January to March 2015, Petitioner
displayed “moderate weakness,” “deficits” in her range of motion (ROM), and TTP. Ex 2
at 37, 39 and Ex 4 at 121-131. Petitioner was discharged from PT secondary to failure to
schedule future appointments. Ex 4 at 132.
Because Petitioner continued to complain of right shoulder pain, she underwent
an MRI in June 2015, which showed findings of (1) thinning of the infraspinatus tendon
and (2) a possible partial undersurface tear of the infraspinatus. Ex 2 at 26. Petitioner was
subsequently referred to an orthopedist, Dr. Thomas Wu. At Petitioner’s initial
appointment on November 30, 2015, PE revealed slightly decreased strength and positive
impingement sign. Ex 3 at 2. She was diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear, but Dr. Wu
reported that Petitioner did “not feel that her symptoms [we]re significant enough for [a
cortisone injection or surgery].” Id.
The record then reflects an almost three-year gap in treatment for Petitioner’s
shoulder – and this gap bears on the magnitude of pain and suffering to be awarded in
this case.8 On July 18, 2018, Petitioner reported right shoulder pain during an
appointment with her PCP, and she was referred to another orthopedist, Dr. Craig Zeman.
Ex 9 and Ex 10 at 4. Examination by Dr. Zeman on July 20, 2018 revealed decreased
ROM, TTP, and positive impingement, and Petitioner was diagnosed with bursitis. Ex 9
at 11-13. These records do not explain the reason for this delay in treatment.
Dr. Zeman subsequently performed a corticosteroid injection into the
acromioclavicular (AC) joint and subacromial space in September 2018.9 Ex 9 at 6.
Petitioner also underwent an MRI arthrogram of the right shoulder in February 2019,
which showed mild to moderate tendinosis with a small articular surface tear of the distal
infraspinatus.10 Ex 11 at 6.
8 Petitioner occasionally visited her PCP during this time but did not complain of shoulder pain at these
appointments. See Ex 2, Ex 5, and Ex 10.
9 Petitioner alleges that she had a second corticosteroid injection in December 2018; however, a detailed
review of the notes from the December appointment reflect that Dr. Zemen is referencing Petitioner’s
history of receiving an injection in September 2018. There is no indication that Dr. Zemen performed a
second injection at the December 2018 appointment. Ex 11 at 1-4.
10 The MRI also showed osteoarthritis of the AC joint. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s physicians have
attributed Petitioner’s arthritis to her SIRVA. See, e.g., Ex 11 at 40.
4

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 98 Filed 09/14/20 Page 5 of 7
One month later, Petitioner underwent shoulder surgery.11 Ex 11 at 19. Petitioner
subsequently attended nine post-surgical PT sessions and was discharged in May 2019,
when she reported she “[was] doing well.” Id at 41. At follow-up visits with Dr. Zemen in
May and December 2019, PE did show TTP, slightly decreased strength, and positive
impingement; however, she had resumed physical activities. Id. at 38 and Ex 13 at 1-2.
She returned to Dr. Zemen in January 2020 after experiencing a flare of her symptoms
while swimming. Ex 15 at 1. However, these symptoms subsided over the course of a
week and Petitioner has received no further treatment since February 2020. Ex 15.
In her affidavits, Petitioner alleges that she spent multiple years in pain and lives
in fear that her pain will return. Ex 6, Ex 14, and Ex 16. Prior to surgery, she had
difficulty getting dressed and using the computer, was unable to swim or otherwise
exercise, and could not lift her infant grandson. Id. She also reports that she was only
able to sleep on her left side for five years, which has changed the physical appearance
of her face. Id.
As I informed the parties during the expedited hearing,12 the question in this case
is not whether Petitioner is entitled to any compensation for her pain and suffering, but
rather what amount of compensation is justified, based upon the facts of the case and
considered relevant input. This determination is not an exact science but more of an art.
While it is tempting to “split the difference” and award an amount halfway between the
amounts proposed by the parties (acknowledging that in this case, the parties’ respective
positions reasonably “frame” high and low potential awards), each petitioner deserves an
examination of the specific facts in his or her case. Thus, while amounts ultimately
awarded may end up falling somewhere in the range between the awards proposed by
both parties, this result flows from a specific analysis of Ms. Stoliker’s personal
circumstances.
Overall, I find that the proper pain and suffering award for this case should fall
somewhere above the median amount typically awarded in SIRVA cases that result in
surgery. Ms. Stoliker’s pain and suffering were overall more significant than most, but not
so egregious as to justify an award at the level proposed by Petitioner.
Petitioner argues that her case is comparable to Reed, where the petitioner was
awarded $160,000.00 in pain and suffering.13 However, while the facts in Reed are
analogous to Petitioner’s case (mainly in that both petitioners experienced improvement
11 Specifically, arthroscopy with excision of the distal end of the clavicle, excision of the os acromiale,
debridement of the glenohumeral joint, subacromial decompression, and partial acromioplasty. Ex 11 at
19.
12 An official recording of the proceeding was taken by court reporter, and a link to instructions on the
court’s website detailing how to order a certified transcript or audio recording of the proceeding can be
found in the minute entries for this proceeding. Minute Entry, dated July 31, 2020; see also
www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/trans (last visited July 9, 2020).
13 Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb.
1, 2019).
5

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 98 Filed 09/14/20 Page 6 of 7
after surgery), Ms. Reed rated her pain as 6-9/10 for six months, whereas Petitioner’s
symptoms were consistently described as mild to moderate. Furthermore, Ms. Reed
displayed severely limited ROM and attended more than 30 sessions of PT over 12
months, while Petitioner attended only 15 sessions over five months. Ms. Reed also
continued to see a pain management physician two-and-a-half years after her surgery.
Petitioner, by contrast, was only taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications as
needed within six months of her surgery. Petitioner also alleges that her case is similar to
Reed because both petitioners found their ability to perform childcare limited by their
injury – but the cases are not truly comparable on this issue. As previously noted,
Petitioner was unable to lift and carry her infant grandson, while Ms. Reed was a single
mother to an eight-year-old.
Another factor suggesting that the pain and suffering award herein should be less
than demanded by Petitioner is the significant, 3.5-year gap in her treatment, since it
suggests an injury mild enough to tolerate for a long period of time. Treatment gaps are
“a relevant consideration in determining the degree of Petitioner’s pain and suffering.”
Dirksen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1461V, 2018 WL 6293201, at *9-10
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2018). Petitioner did not complain of shoulder pain from
December 2015 to mid-July 2018, despite opportunities to do so at various visits to her
PCP. She also declined cortisone injections and surgery when offered by Dr. Wu in
November 2015.
Petitioner boldly asserts the contrary, arguing that the treatment gap actually
supports a higher award than in Reed, because she lived with the pain far longer (given
that the petitioner in Reed underwent surgery within six months of injury). However, this
argument is facially unpersuasive. The fact that Petitioner’s injury did not merit more
invasive treatment on a shorter timeframe undercuts her allegations of its severity, and
therefore supports a lesser pain and suffering award than Petitioner requests.
Respondent, by contrast, references Knudson14 in his brief to support a lower
award, but it too presents inapposite facts. The petitioner’s pain in that case had virtually
resolved after only seven months. Even discounting Petitioner’s gap in treatment, she
received active treatment for approximately two years total, and her pain and suffering
award should account for that time, even if treatment was voluntarily delayed.
In actuality, the factual circumstances in Petitioner’s case are more similar to those
in Wallace.15 As with Petitioner, the Wallace petitioner received active treatment for
variable symptoms over the course of approximately two years. He had two cortisone
injections and attended multiple courses of physical therapy, and he also experienced
significant improvement after surgery. Additionally, while the petitioner in Cooper16 did
14 Knudson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1004V, 2018 WL 6293381 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Nov 7, 2018) (awarding $110,000.00 for pain and suffering).
15 Wallace v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1472V, 2019 WL 4458393 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
June 27, 2019) (awarding $125,000.00 in pain and suffering).
16 Cooper v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1387V, 2018 WL 6288181, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) (awarding $110,000.00 in pain and suffering).
6

Case 1:17-vv-00990-UNJ Document 98 Filed 09/14/20 Page 7 of 7
not undergo surgery, the court found that Ms. Cooper’s opting for conservative treatment
(as Petitioner did in 2015) and treatment gaps justified reducing her award for pain and
suffering. The same approach is justified under the facts of Ms. Stoliker’s case.
Accordingly, I find an award of $120,000.00 is appropriate for Petitioner’s pain and
suffering.
IV. Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $120,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.17 I also find that Petitioner
is entitled to $1,119.77 in actual unreimbursable expenses.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $121,119.77 in the form
of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages
that would be available under § 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
17 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See § 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 96-0194V,
1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
18 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.
7