VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00613
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00613
Petitioner: Emily Jahn
Filed: 2019-12-27
Decided: 2022-01-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-12-28
Condition: left shoulder injuries
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 136694

AI-assisted case summary:
Emily Jahn filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 27, 2019, alleging that she suffered left shoulder injuries caused in fact by an influenza vaccination she received on December 28, 2016. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On September 17, 2019, Special Master Dorsey issued a fact ruling finding that the influenza vaccine was administered in Petitioner's left arm and that her shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Respondent later filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating they would not contest entitlement on other grounds, preserving their right to appeal the fact ruling, but submitting that Petitioner had otherwise satisfied the criteria for SIRVA. On December 19, 2019, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement in Petitioner's favor. The parties were unable to resolve damages informally, leading to simultaneous damages briefs filed on November 23, 2021. On January 19, 2022, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision awarding damages. The court found Petitioner entitled to a lump sum payment of $136,694.55, consisting of $135,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $1,694.55 for past unreimbursable expenses. The decision noted that Petitioner, then 34 years old, experienced left shoulder pain starting twelve days post-vaccination, receiving treatment including physical therapy and two steroid injections, with significant relief noted by July 2017. She did not seek further treatment for her shoulder until January 2020, a period of over 28 months during which she became pregnant and gave birth, and experienced other ailments. During this gap, she received other vaccines, including in her left shoulder. Upon returning for treatment in January 2020, she received a third steroid injection, followed by arthroscopic surgery in July 2020 after an MRI showed a small rotator cuff tear. Post-surgery, she reported significant improvement, though pain returned to some extent. She received a fourth steroid injection in October 2020 and continued physical therapy. Her last PT session was in November 2020, and she received a fifth and final injection in December 2020. There was no evidence of further treatment for left shoulder pain after 2020. The Special Master considered Petitioner's arguments regarding the duration of pain, difficulties during pregnancy and childcare, and compared her case to prior SIRVA cases, noting that while her injury duration was longer and she received more steroid injections, her recovery was slower, and she had a more compelling reason for the treatment gap. However, the Special Master also considered Petitioner's pre-existing lower back and leg pain since 2010, which likely accounted for some of her suffering, especially during the treatment gap. The award did not include compensation for future pain and suffering, as Petitioner had not established a permanent disability or other extenuating circumstances. Petitioner's counsel was Paul R. Brazil of Muller Brazil, LLP, and Respondent's counsel was Althea Walker Davis of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Emily Jahn, vaccinated on December 28, 2016, with an influenza vaccine in her left arm, alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). A ruling on entitlement found preponderant evidence that the vaccine was administered in her left arm and the onset of SIRVA occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Respondent did not contest entitlement on other grounds, agreeing Petitioner met the criteria for SIRVA under the Vaccine Injury Table. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded damages on January 19, 2022. The award included $135,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $1,694.55 for past unreimbursable expenses, totaling $136,694.55. The Special Master considered the duration and severity of the injury, noting an initial eight-month period of moderate SIRVA, followed by a 28-month gap in treatment due to pregnancy and childcare, and subsequent treatment including surgery and multiple steroid injections. The Special Master found the injury duration longer than in comparable cases like Gunter, and noted more extensive treatment, but also considered Petitioner's pre-existing lower back and leg pain, which likely contributed to some of her reported suffering. No award was made for future pain and suffering due to lack of established permanent disability. Petitioner's counsel was Paul R. Brazil, and Respondent's counsel was Althea Walker Davis.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00613-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-11-20
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/17/2019) regarding 29 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0613V
Filed: September 17, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
EMILY JAHN,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Findings of Fact; Onset and Site of
Vaccination; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Shealene Priscilla Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On May 1, 2018, 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 left shoulder injuries caused in fact by the
influenza vaccination she received on December 28, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 11. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned finds the influenza vaccine
alleged as causal was administered in petitioner’s injured left arm 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 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 7
petitioner’s shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) occurred within
48 hours of vaccination. Specifically, petitioner suffered pain immediately upon
vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner filed most medical records with her petition on May 1, 2018. See
Exhibits 1-9. During the June 22, 2018 initial status conference, the OSM staff attorney
managing this SPU case noted that the vaccine record from CVS indicated petitioner
received the influenza vaccine alleged as causal in her right, rather than left, arm.
Order issued July 6, 2018, at 1 (ECF No. 9). She asked petitioner’s counsel to obtain
any additional evidence regarding this issue and a corrected vaccine record if available.
Id. A few days later, petitioner filed a document titled “Corrected Vaccination Record.”
See Exhibit 10. This document appears to be the second page of a vaccine record from
CVS, like the one originally filed, with most of the same information such as the lot
number, date of vaccination, and administrator. The only differences are the site of
administration, listed as the left deltoid on the corrected form, and the lack of the
administrator’s signature on the corrected form. Compare Exhibit 1 at 3 with Exhibit 10.
Two months later, on June 28, 2018, respondent filed a status report noting the
lack of signature on the corrected form and the fact that the Vaccine Administration
Event Report (“VAERS”) form filed with the original vaccine record also lists the right
arm as the site of administration. (ECF No. 10). Respondent adds that these issues
“will impact respondent’s ability to assess petitioner’s claim” and asks for clarification
now. Id. at 3.
In early September 2018, petitioner requested subpoena authority to obtain
additional information from CVS regarding the changes made to the vaccine record and
identity of the individual who completed and filed the VAERS report. (ECF Nos. 11-12).
In response to petitioner’s subpoena, petitioner received and filed two emails. See
Exhibits 11, 18 (ECF Nos. 16, 19). In the first email, a paralegal at CVS’s litigation
section indicates the corrected vaccine record was created after petitioner spoke, by
telephone, to the Pharmacy Manager Lisa Reilly at the store where she received the
vaccination. Exhibit 11 at 1. The email indicated “[t]he date of the call is unknown.” Id.
After a follow-up email from petitioner’s counsel, the paralegal confirmed that the
VAERS report was completed by Lisa Reilly on November 1, 2018.3 Exhibit 18 at 1.
In late November and December 2018, petitioner filed four witness affidavits from
her mother, who was with her when she received the vaccination, and from three friends
with whom she discussed her vaccination and left shoulder injury within days of the
3 Since the VAERS report was filed in this case on May 1, 2018, the date provided on the report,
November 1, 2018, cannot be accurate.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 7
vaccination. Exhibits 14-16 (ECF No. 18); Exhibit 19 (ECF No. 26). She also filed
additional medical records. Exhibits 12-13, 17 (ECF No. 18). One of these exhibits is
the medical records from visits to Wellsprings Acupuncture on December 29, 2016 and
January 9, 2017. Exhibit 17.
II. Issue
There are two factual issues: 1) whether petitioner’ received the vaccine alleged
as causal in her injured left arm and 2) whether petitioner’s first symptom or
manifestation of onset after vaccine administration was within 48 hours as set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (influenza vaccination).
Additionally, the Qualifications and aids to interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA
requires that a petitioner’s pain occur within this same time frame, 48 hours. 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(c)(10).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act § 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
§ 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
§ 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence.
The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate
diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the
balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Curcuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
03-1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However,
this rule does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written
records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than
those which are internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the
events when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms
3

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 7
that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-
04 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony
that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42
Fed. Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998
WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual
offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even
though the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was
incorrectly recorded as having occurred outside such period.” § 13(b)(2). “Such a
finding may be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that
the onset [of the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the
Vaccine Injury Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical
records, testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the
record.” La Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also
Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that
it is within the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight
to medical records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events
in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Bases for Findings of Fact
The undersigned makes the findings in this ruling after a complete review of the
record to include all medical records, affidavits, testimony, expert reports, respondent’s
Rule 4 report, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, the undersigned bases the
findings on the following evidence:
• Despite the dispute regarding the site of administration, the vaccine record
initially provided shows petitioner received an influenza vaccination on
December 28, 2016. Exhibit 1. This fact does not appear to be disputed
by the parties.
• When petitioner first sought medical treatment for her left shoulder pain, at
CareWell Urgent Care, on January 13, 2017, she reported aching, dull,
and constant left arm pain and decreased range of motion (“ROM”) since
receiving the influenza vaccination 16 days prior. Exhibit 7 at 3. The
nurse practitioner Jeffrey Ayotte who treated petitioner opined that her
“shoulder pain seems to be from a vaccine injection to the deltoid that was
4

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 7
to [sic] high up.” Id. at 4. He instructed petitioner to apply ice or heat and
to follow-up with her primary care provider or an orthopedist. Id.
• The record from petitioner’s follow-up visit to an orthopedist on January
27, 2017 indicates petitioner “describes 1 month of left shoulder
discomfort, which she relates to having flu shot.” Exhibit 4 at 7. The
orthopedist, Dr. Thomas Gross, at UMass Memorial Medical Center,
assessed petitioner as suffering from “an impingement problem, possibly
related to her flu injection.” Id.
• When petitioner returned to UMass Memorial Medical Center on April 28,
2017, she reported immediate pain after receiving “a flu shot in her left
shoulder about 4 months ago.” Id. at 4. This record indicates petitioner is
right handed. Id.
• At her first physical therapy session, on February 22, 2017, petitioner
reported that she “noticed left shoulder pain following a flu shot.” Exhibit 5
at 2.
• When petitioner visited her acupuncturist on January 9, 2017, for
treatment of her back spasms and pain, she reported that her left arm was
still painful after receiving a “flu shot 10 days ago.” Exhibit 17 at 8.
• Petitioner has provided affidavits from four other individuals, one of whom,
her mother, accompanied her to the store when she received the
vaccination alleged as causal. All affiants recall that petitioner discussed,
in person or by telephone or text, the left shoulder pain she experienced
vaccination. According to the affiants, these communications occurred the
same day (exhibit 14 at 2), the next day (exhibit 19 at 3), four to five days
after vaccination (exhibit 15 at 3), and a few days after Christmas (exhibit
16 at 3).
V. Site of Vaccination
The above medical entries show that petitioner consistently connected her left
shoulder injury to the influenza vaccination she had received. Throughout these
medical records, petitioner indicates she received the influenza vaccination in her left
arm.
The only documentation which indicates the vaccination was administered in
petitioner’s right, rather than left arm, is the vaccine record which was created on
December 28, 2016, and the VAERS report which was appears to have been created
by the Pharmacy Manager at the store where the vaccination was administered.
Although the date that the VAERS report was created is not known, it is likely that the
site of vaccination noted in the VAERS report was based on that listed in the original
vaccine record. At some point, the vaccine record was amended to indicate the
5

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/20/19 Page 6 of 7
vaccination was administered in petitioner’s left, rather than right, arm in response to a
telephone call from petitioner.
The validity of both documents which list the site of vaccination as petitioner’s
right arm is questionable. However, this evidence is outweighed by the evidence
indicating the vaccination was received in petitioner’s injured left arm. Although much of
this evidence can be found in medical histories provided by petitioner, most were
provided less than a month after vaccination for the purpose of obtaining medical care.
All were provided within four months of vaccination. Moreover, petitioner has provided
affidavits from four other individuals indicating that petitioner discussed her vaccination
and left shoulder pain with them several days to several weeks after vaccination.
As such, the undersigned finds preponderant evidence that petitioner
received the influenza vaccine alleged as causal in her injured left arm.
VI. Onset of Petitioner’s Pain
In the same five medical histories provided close in time to vaccination, petitioner
relates the onset of her left arm pain to the influenza vaccination she received on
December 28, 2016. When visiting her acupuncturist, for back spasms and pain, on
January 9, 2017, petitioner reported that her back pain was much better but that her
“arm [was] still painful” after receiving the “flu shot 10 days ago.” Exhibit 17 at 8.
When she sought treatment for her left arm pain four days later, petitioner reported
decreased ROM and stiffness since her influenza vaccination. Exhibit 7 at 3. She
described her pain as aching, dull, and constant. Id. When seen by an orthopedist 31
days after vaccination, she “describe[d] 1 month of left shoulder discomfort.” Exhibit 4
at 7. At her first PT appointment, petitioner again identified the influenza vaccination as
the start of her pain. She indicated “she noticed left shoulder pain following a flu shot.”
Exhibit 5 at 2. At her second orthopedic appointment, petitioner indicated that “she
noticed immediate shoulder pain after the injection.” Exhibit 4 at 4.
Thus, the undersigned finds that the evidence in the medical records establish
that the onset was immediate. There is no entry which indicates onset occurred later.
As such, the undersigned finds preponderant evidence that petitioner’s
manifestation of onset after vaccine administration immediately, occurred within
48 hours.
VII. Scheduling Order
Given the undersigned’s findings of fact regarding the site of vaccination and the
onset of petitioner’s pain, respondent should evaluate and provide his current position
regarding the merits of petitioner’s case.
Respondent shall file a status report indicating how he intends to proceed
in this case by no later than Monday, October 21, 2019. At a minimum, the status
report shall indicate whether he is willing to engage in tentative discussions regarding
settlement or proffer, is opposed to negotiating at this time, or that the Secretary has not
6

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 7
yet determined his position. In the event respondent wishes to file a Rule 4(c) report, he
may propose a date for filing it, but shall indicate his position on entering into
negotiations regardless of whether he wishes to file a Rule 4(c) report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00613-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-01-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/27/2019) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 38 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0613V
UNPUBLISHED
EMILY JAHN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 27, 2019
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Table Injury;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Shealene Priscilla Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 1, 2018, Emily Jahn 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 left shoulder injuries caused in fact by the
influenza vaccination she received on December 28, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 11. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters
On August 17, 2019, Special Master Dorsey (to whom this case was previously
assigned)3 issued a fact ruling, finding there is preponderant evidence to establish that
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to
the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to
redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such
material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
3 On October 1, 2019, former Chief Special Master Dorsey stepped down as Chief Special Master. She
continues to adjudicate vaccine cases as Special Master Dorsey. I was appointed Chief Special Master,
and the majority of SPU cases, including this case, were reassigned to me.

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 38 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 2
the influenza vaccine alleged as causal was administered in Petitioner’s injured left arm
and the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”)
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 1-
2, ECF No. 29.
On December 19, 2019, Respondent filed an amended Rule 4 report indicating
“that he will not defend the case on other grounds during further proceedings before the
Office of Special Masters.” Rule 4(c) Report at 5, ECF No. 34. “[W]hile preserving his
right to appeal the Court’s September 17, 2019 Findings of Fact, [R]espondent submits
that [P]etitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table
and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00613-2
Date issued/filed: 2022-01-19
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/17/2021) regarding 68 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0613V
UNPUBLISHED
EMILY JAHN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 17, 2021
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)
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 1, 2018, Emily Jahn 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 left shoulder injuries caused in fact by the
influenza vaccination she received on December 28, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 11. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Although a ruling on entitlement in Petitioner’s favor was issued two years ago, the parties
have been unable to resolve damages on their own.
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 Section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 2 of 11
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $136,694.55, representing $135,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, plus $1,694.55 for past unreimbursable expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Along with the Petition, Emily Jahn filed most of the medical records required by
the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-9, ECF No. 1; see Section 11(c). During the subsequent 16-
month period, Petitioner filed the remainder of her medical records and additional
evidence regarding the site of vaccination. Exhibits 10-19, ECF Nos. 8, 16, 18-19, 26. On
September 17, 2019, Special Master Dorsey3 issued a fact ruling, finding that Petitioner
received the vaccine alleged as causal in her left arm - as alleged, and that the onset of
her left shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. ECF No. 29. In late
December 2019, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that he would no longer
contest entitlement, and I issued a ruling finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF
Nos. 34-35.
Over the subsequent 20-month period, the parties attempted to informally resolve
the issue of damages. E.g., Status Report, filed Apr. 12, 2021, ECF No. 59. On September
13, 2021, however, they informed me they had reached an impasse. ECF No. 64. On
November 23, 2021, they filed simultaneous damages briefs. ECF Nos. 66-67. Neither
party chose to file a responsive brief by the December 9, 2021 deadline. The matter is
now ripe for adjudication.
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 From September 2015 through October 1, 2019, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master
Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me after I was appointed
Chief Special Master.
2

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 3 of 11
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)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. 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.4 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).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. In Graves, Judge Merow rejected a special master’s approach of awarding
compensation for pain and suffering based on a spectrum from $0.00 to the statutory
$250,000.00 cap. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl.
2013). Judge Merow maintained that do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering awards
into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is compared
to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 590. Instead, Judge Merow
assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering
awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the
Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely
4 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, and then to me in early October 2019.
3

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 4 of 11
cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible
awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap.
III. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU5
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of July 1, 2021, 2,097 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU on
July 1, 2014. Compensation was awarded in 2,036 of these cases, with the remaining 61
cases dismissed.
Of the compensated cases, 1,187 SPU SIRVA cases involved a prior ruling that
petitioner was entitled to compensation. In only 69 of these cases was the amount of
damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision. As I have previously
stated, the written decisions setting forth such determinations, prepared by neutral judicial
officers (the special masters themselves), provide the most reliable precedent setting
forth what similarly-situated claimants should also receive.6
1,092 of this subset of post-entitlement determination, compensation-awarding
cases, were the product of informal settlement - cases via proffer and 26 cases via
stipulation. Although all proposed amounts denote an agreement reached by the parties,
those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than any formal agreement
or acknowledgment by Respondent that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages. Of course, even though any such informally-resolved case must still be
approved by a special master, these determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number
of such cases, these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of
awards received overall in comparable cases.” Sakovits, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
(emphasis in original).
The remaining 849 compensated SIRVA cases were resolved via stipulated
agreement of the parties without a prior ruling on entitlement. These agreements are often
described as “litigative risk” settlements, and thus represent a reduced percentage of the
5 All figures included in this decision are derived from a review of the decisions awarding compensation
within the SPU. All decisions reviewed are, or will be, available publicly. All figures and calculations cited
are approximate.
6 See, e.g., Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (discussing the difference between cases in which damages are agreed upon by
the parties and cases in which damages are determined by a special master).
4

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 5 of 11
compensation which otherwise would be awarded. Due to the complexity of these
settlement discussions, many which involve multiple competing factors, these awards do
not constitute a reliable gauge of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded
in other SPU SIRVA cases.
The data for all groups described above reflect the expected differences in
outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated7
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 69 1,092 26 849
Lowest $40,757.91 $25,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000.00
1st Quartile $75,000.00 $70,000.00 $90,000.00 $45,000.00
Median $97,500.00 $90,350.00 $115,214.49 $65,000.00
3rd Quartile $125,360.00 $119,502.79 $158,264.36 $90,000.00
Largest $265,034.87 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 69 SPU SIRVA cases which required a reasoned damages decision,
compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from $40,000.00
to $210,000.00, with $95,500.00 as the median amount. Only five of these cases involved
an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from $250.00 to
$1,000.00.8
In cases with lower awards for past pain and suffering, many petitioners commonly
demonstrated only mild to moderate levels of pain throughout their injury course. This
lack of significant pain is often evidenced by a delay in seeking treatment of 40 days to
over six months. In cases with more significant initial pain, petitioners experienced this
greater pain for three months or less. All petitioners displayed only mild to moderate
limitations in range of motion (“ROM”), and MRI imaging showed evidence of mild to
moderate pathologies such as tendinosis, bursitis, or edema. Many petitioners suffered
from unrelated conditions to which a portion of their pain and suffering could be attributed.
These SIRVAs usually resolved after one to two cortisone injections and two months or
less of physical therapy (“PT”). None required surgery. The duration of the injury ranged
7 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
8 Additionally, a first-year future pain and suffering award of $10,000.00 was made in one case. Dhanoa v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018).
5

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 6 of 11
from six to 29 months, with petitioners averaging approximately nine months of pain.
Although some petitioners asserted residual pain, the prognosis in these cases was
positive.
Cases with higher awards for past pain and suffering involved petitioners who
suffered more significant levels of pain and SIRVAs of longer duration. Most of these
petitioners subjectively rated their pain within the upper half of a ten-point pain scale and
sought treatment of their SIRVAs more immediately, often within 30 days of vaccination.
All experienced moderate to severe limitations in range of motion. MRI imaging showed
more significant findings, with the majority showing evidence of partial tearing. Surgery or
significant conservative treatment, up to 95 PT sessions over a duration of more than two
years and multiple cortisone injections, was required in these cases. In four cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering. In the fourth case involving an
award of future pain and suffering, the petitioner provided evidence of an ongoing SIRVA
expected to resolve within the subsequent year.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
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 performing this analysis, I have reviewed the record as a whole, including all
medical records and affidavits filed plus the parties’ briefs and other pleadings. I also have
taken into account prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU SIRVA
cases, and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, I base my
ultimate determination on the specific circumstances of this case.
A. The Parties’ Arguments
The parties agree Petitioner should be awarded $1,694.55 for her unreimbursed
medical expenses. Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages (“Brief”), at 1 n.1, ECF No.
66; Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Opp.”), at 2, 15, ECF No. 67. Thus, the only area
of disagreement is regarding the amount of compensation which should be awarded for
pain and suffering.
Emphasizing the more than four-year duration of her left shoulder pain, the
additional difficulties she encountered while pregnant and as the mother of a newborn
child, and her young age – presently 38 years old, Petitioner requests $175,000.00 for
6

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 7 of 11
pain and suffering. Brief at 10-11. Arguing that a gap in treatment should not be equated
with a lack of symptoms, Petitioner maintains that she often foreswore treatment,
prioritizing her child’s care over her own comfort. Petitioner acknowledges that she gained
temporary relief following five cortisone injections, but insists her pain always returned at
its initial severity. She characterizes her July 27, 2020 surgery as unsuccessful. Id. at 10.
To support her requested sum, Petitioner invokes four prior SIRVA cases: Schmitt, Reed,
Wilson, and S.C.9 In each, the petitioner received awards ranging from $117,000 to
$160,000. Because she requests a greater sum, it can be assumed Petitioner deems her
personal pain and suffering to have been more significant.
Respondent, by contrast, argues for the lesser award of $120,000. Opp. at 13, 15.
Respondent stresses the more than 28-month gap in treatment from September 2017
through January 2020, during which Petitioner gave birth to her child, sought treatment
of her chronic back pain, and received multiple vaccines – several of which were
administered in her left injured arm. Opp. at 13, 15. Although he “does not dispute that
the treatment [P]etitioner received in 2020 . . . [is] related to her SIRVA Injury from her
December 2016 flu vaccine,” he maintains that the lack of treatment during this time
should be considered when determining compensation. Id. at 13. He compares the facts
and circumstances of Petitioner’s case to what was experienced by the petitioners in Nute
and Gunter, who received awards of only $125,000.00 for their pain and suffering.10 Opp.
at 13-14.
B. Analysis
1. Duration and Severity of SIRVA Injury
A thorough review of the medical records reveals that Ms. Jahn suffered a
moderate SIRVA injury for approximately eight months post-vaccination - through early
September 2017. She then became pregnant in late 2017, and did not seek treatment for
her SIRVA again until early 2020 when her daughter was approximately 17 months old.
At that time, she returned for treatment in January 2020, and underwent arthroscopic
9 Schmitt v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0021V, 2021 WL 4470101 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 30,
2021) (awarding $118,000.00 for pain and suffering); Reed v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1690V,
2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2019) (awarding $160,000.00 for pain and suffering);
Wilson v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0035V 2021 WL 1530731 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
2021) (awarding $130,000.00 for pain and suffering); S.C. v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0341V,
2021 WL 2949763 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 14, 2021) (awarding $160,000.00 for pain and suffering).
.
10 Nute v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0140V, 2019 WL 6125008 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 6,
2018); Gunter v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1941V, 2020 WL 6622141 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 13, 2020).
7

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 8 of 11
surgery in late July. She last sought treatment for her SIRVA in late December 2020,
receiving her fifth steroid injection at that visit.
i. Initial Eight Month Period: Vaccination Through Early-September 2017
Prior to receiving the flu vaccine on December 28, 2016, Petitioner (then age 34)
suffered from left lumbar radiculopathy, diagnosed in late 2015 but occurring since 2010.
Exhibit 6 at 2 (October 5, 2015 diagnosis), 14 (duration of five years noted in an October
16, 2015 record). Diagnoses of lumbar disc displacement and spinal stenosis were added
several weeks later, and Petitioner was administered a lumbar epidural steroid injection
on October 16, 2015. Id. at 10-11. The day after vaccination, Petitioner received treatment
from her acupuncturist for her back pain, as well as arthritis in her foot and an issue with
her right knee. Exhibit 17 at 7.
Petitioner reported her left shoulder pain at the next visit to her acupuncturist on
January 9, 2017, twelve days post-vaccination. Exhibit 17 at 8. Four days later, she visited
an urgent care clinic complaining of left shoulder pain, described as a constant dull ache,
and decreased ROM. Exhibit 2 at 2.
On January 27, 2017, Petitioner was seen by an orthopedist who administered a
steroid injection. Exhibit 3 at 2. At her next appointment on February 17, 2017, she
reported 90 percent relief but a recent return of her pain. Id. at 6. By her first PT session
on February 22, 2017, Petitioner rated her pain as seven at its worst and three when
resting. Exhibit 5 at 2. She attended 20 PT sessions from February through early
September 2017. Exhibit 5.
When seen again by the orthopedist on April 27, 2017, Petitioner reported
improved ROM but continued pain. Exhibit 4 at 4. Despite expressing some reservation
due to her attempts to get pregnant, Petitioner consented to a second steroid injection.
She noted that she was certain she was not pregnant at that time. Id. at 5.
When she returned to the orthopedist on July 21, 2017, Petitioner reported that her
“pain [wa]s substantially better than it has been.” Exhibit 4 at 3. The orthopedist opined
that Petitioner’s “rotator cuff syndrome has been alleviated.” Id. Petitioner’s last PT
session was on September 1, 2017. Exhibit 5 at 62-63.
ii. Relief for 28 Months: Early-September 2017 Through Mid-January 2020
It appears Petitioner obtained significant relief from the second steroid injection
she received in April 2017 – bulwarked by the fact that she did not complain of left
shoulder pain again until January 16, 2020 (nearly three years later). At that visit,
8

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 9 of 11
however, Petitioner reported that this second injection, administered on April 27, 2017,
provided relief for only about one year. Exhibit 27 at 117.
During this 28-month gap in treatment, Petitioner became pregnant, giving birth to
her daughter in August 2018. Exhibit 23 at 559-566. Although she insists that she
continued to suffer significant left shoulder pain, but did not seek treatment due to a desire
to focus on her daughter, these assertions are not fully supported by the medical records.
The medical records show Petitioner complained of other ailments during this 28-month
period, specifically restless leg syndrome, back spasms, and lower back and leg pain.
Exhibit 23 at 245, 545; Exhibit 27 at 38. Additionally, after receiving her next flu vaccine
in her opposing right shoulder on November 1, 2017, Petitioner again received vaccines
in her left injured shoulder in September 2018 and October 2019. Exhibit 20 at 3-4.
When seen for her lower back and leg pain in late 2019, Petitioner declined a
lumbar steroid injection and formal PT. Exhibit 27 at 40, 90. These actions provide some
support for her assertion that she experienced some left shoulder pain during this time
but did not pursue treatment. Still, the complaints of lower back and leg pain signal these
were the greater symptoms.
iii. Surgery and Additional Treatment: January Through December 2020
When Petitioner sought treatment again for her left shoulder pain on January 16,
2020, she reported a return of pain while nursing and interacting with her daughter - now
a toddler, and a desire for treatment due to a worsening of this pain. Exhibit 27 at 117.
Indicating Petitioner could receive a steroid injection every three months, the orthopedist
administered Petitioner’s third steroid injection. Exhibit 27 at 117-18.
At a virtual appointment in early May 2020, Petitioner reported “100% relief from
her shoulder pain from her cortisone injection in January for about 2 months” but a return
of “the same symptoms.” Exhibit 24 at 12. After reviewing an MRI taken a few days later
which showed a small rotator cuff tear, the orthopedist recommended arthroscopic
surgery. Id. at 21.
Following surgery, performed on July 27, 2020, Petitioner reported a significant
improvement in her pain. Exhibit 26 at 150 (follow-up orthopedic visit on August 20, 2020).
Although recent events had “mildly aggravated [her] shoulder pain,” Petitioner still
described her pain as “not severe.” Id. At her first post-surgery PT session, Petitioner
described her pain as ranging between one and five. Exhibit 28 at 5. By her eighth visit
on September 21, 2020, Petitioner’s pain had decreased to between zero and three. Id.
at 35.
9

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 10 of 11
On October 15, 2020, Petitioner received a fourth steroid injection. Exhibit 26 at
223. When attending her fifteenth post-surgery PT session on October 27, 2020, she
reported improvements such as the ability to drive without pain. Exhibit 28 at 55. At her
next PT session on November 2, 2020, Petitioner reported “feeling pretty good [but] still
with some pain down the side/front of [her] arm.” Id. at 61.
Petitioner last attended PT for her left shoulder on November 30, 2020. Exhibit 28
at 77-79. She received her fifth and final injection, guided by ultrasound, on December
31, 2020. Exhibit 30 at 25. According to her PT records, Petitioner was also treated for
her lower back pain in December 2020 and January 2021. Exhibit 28 at 81-110. On
January 12, 2021, Petitioner was discharged from PT due her failure to schedule any
session after her December injection. Exhibit 28 at 80. There is no evidence that
Petitioner pursued treatment for left shoulder pain after 2020.
2. Comparison to Other Awards
Although the cases cited by Petitioner involve a gap in treatment – and thus reflect
her tacit acknowledgement that the gap in this case bears on the award she should
receive - the circumstances in these cases are not otherwise comparable with Petitioner’s
case. Additionally, the awards in several of those cases are significantly less that what
Petitioner is seeking, and she has not explained how the cases are supportive of the
amount she requests for pain and suffering.
When determining the appropriate amount of compensation in this case, I find
Gunter to be most instructive. Like the present Petitioner, the Gunter petitioner suffered
a moderate SIRVA injury for eleven months during which she underwent conservative
treatment – oral steroids and PT, a thirteen-month gap in treatment thereafter, and more
significant treatment, including arthroscopic surgery, before her SIRVA was resolved.
Gunter, 2020 WL 6622141, at *2.
However, there are differences as well – and they actual counsel in favor of a
higher award than what occurred for these comparable petitioners. For example,
Petitioner’s overall injury lasted much longer than that suffered by the Gunter petitioner –
four years, as opposed to 20 months. Gunter, 2020 WL 6622141, at *2. And Petitioner
was administered five steroid injections in an attempt to alleviate her pain. Although the
Gunter petitioner experienced pre-surgery symptoms for a slightly longer period,
Petitioner’s recovery post-surgery was slower. Moreover, even though the gap in
treatment in Petitioner’s case was longer, she had a more compelling reason for the
absence of any treatment – her pregnancy and need to care for her newborn child. Id.
At the same time, these considerations are countered by relevant factors such as
10

Case 1:18-vv-00613-UNJ Document 72 Filed 01/19/22 Page 11 of 11
the lower back and leg pain Petitioner has experienced since 2010. This unrelated source
of pain likely accounted for some of the suffering Petitioner experienced, especially during
her 28-month gap in treatment when she sought treatment for this condition, but not her
left shoulder pain. Thus, I find an award only slightly above that awarded in Gunter is
appropriate.
I do not, however, include any component of damages for future pain and suffering.
As I stated in Accetta, I find that an award for future pain and suffering is appropriate “only
for cases where a strong showing is made that the claimant has suffered a permanent
disability, or there are other extenuating circumstances that justify inclusion of a future
component.” Accetta v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1731V, 2021 WL
1718202, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 31, 2021). In this case, Petitioner has not
established that the sequela of her SIRVA continued beyond 2020.
V. Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $135,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.11 I also find that Petitioner
is entitled to $1,694.55 in actual unreimbursable expenses.
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award a lump
sum payment of $136,694.55 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section
15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 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)).
12 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.
11