VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01361
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01361
Petitioner: Norma Blanco
Filed: 2018-09-06
Decided: 2020-08-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-12-27
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 136140

AI-assisted case summary:
Norma Blanco filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she received an influenza vaccine on December 27, 2016, and subsequently suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). The respondent conceded that her injury was consistent with SIRVA and that she met all legal prerequisites for compensation. The court issued a ruling on entitlement, finding her eligible. The parties were unable to agree on damages, leading to a decision awarding compensation. After considering the severity and duration of her injury, which included significant treatment such as physical therapy, steroid injections, MRI scans, and arthroscopic surgery, the court awarded Norma Blanco a total of $136,140.52. This amount included $135,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,140.52 for past unreimbursed expenses. The decision noted that while her injury was significant and required extensive treatment over two years, she ultimately made a substantial recovery, which influenced the final award amount compared to other SIRVA cases.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01361-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-12-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/16/2019) regarding 25 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01361-UNJ Document 31 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1361V
Filed: October 16, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
NORMA BLANCO,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Corcoran, Chief Special Master:
On September 6, 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 received an influenza (flu) vaccination on
December 27, 2016, and thereafter suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (SIRVA). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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. 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).
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-01361-UNJ Document 31 Filed 12/17/19 Page 2 of 2
On October 15, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report
at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
SIRVA.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” 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 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01361-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-05
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/06/2020) regarding 42 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01361-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1361V
UNPUBLISHED
NORMA BLANCO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 6, 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)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 6, 2018, Norma Blanco 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) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on December
27, 2016. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons described below, and after holding a brief hearing in this matter, I
find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages in the amount $136,140.52,
representing compensation of $135,000.00 for her actual pain and suffering, plus
$1,140.52 for her past unreimbursed expenses.
1 Because this 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-01361-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 6
I. Procedural Overview
As noted above, the case was initiated in September 2018. On October 15, 2019,
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report in which he conceded that Petitioner was entitled to
compensation in this case. ECF No. 23. Accordingly, on October 16, 2019, I issued a
ruling on entitlement finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. ECF No. 25.
The parties were unable to informally resolve the issue of damages, reaching an
impasse on an appropriate award of pain and suffering, and agreed that I should enter a
decision on the written record. ECF Nos. 24, 30. A briefing schedule was thus set on
January 17, 2020. ECF No. 32. Petitioner filed a brief on February 18, 2020, requesting
that I award her $160,000.00 in compensation representing her past/actual pain and
suffering. ECF No. 35. Conversely, in a brief filed on March 20, 2020, Respondent
recommended that I award $130,000.00 to Petitioner for her past pain and suffering. ECF
No. 37. The parties otherwise agree an award of $1,140.52 in compensation for
Petitioner’s past unreimbursed expenses is appropriate, and there are no other damages
components in contention beyond pain and suffering. ECF Nos. 38, 40.
In April of this year, I informed the parties that I believed this case was appropriate
for an expedited hearing and ruling, at which time I would decide the disputed damages
issues based on all evidence filed to date plus whatever oral argument they wanted to
make. ECF No. 39. The parties agreed, and an expedited hearing took place,
telephonically, on June 26, 2020. ECF Nos. 40-41; Minute Entry dated June 26, 2020.3 I
orally ruled on the pain and suffering issue at that time, and this Decision memorializes
my determination.
II. Legal Standard and Prior SIRVA Compensation
In several recent decisions, I have discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining an appropriate award of pain and suffering, as well as prior
SIRVA compensation in SPU cases. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior
discussion in sections V and VI of Wilt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0446V,
2020 WL 1490757 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 24, 2020), sections IV and V of Rafferty v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
May 21, 2020), as well as sections VI(A) and VI(B) of Smallwood v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 18-0291V, 2020 WL 2954958 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2020).
3 The transcript of the June 26, 2020 Hearing in this case was not yet filed as of the date of this Decision,
but is incorporated by reference herein.
2

Case 1:18-vv-01361-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 6
In sum, 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). 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). 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.4
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, Petitioner’s awareness of the injury is not disputed. Therefore, I
analyze principally the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury. In determining
appropriate compensation for Petitioner’s pain and suffering, I have carefully reviewed
and considered the complete record in this case, including, but not limited to: Petitioner’s
medical records, affidavits, and all assertions made by the parties in written documents
and at the expedited hearing held on June 26, 2020. Respondent’s Rule 4 Report, the
parties damages briefs, and the oral argument presented by counsel at the June 26, 2020
Hearing provide detailed summaries of the medical records and affidavits filed in this case
and are hereby incorporated by reference. ECF Nos. 23, 35, and 37. I have also
considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases
and relied upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, my determination is
ultimately based upon the specific circumstances of this case.
In his briefing and during argument, Respondent asserted that pain and suffering
awards outside the Program (often arising in state court tort actions) should be considered
(and noted they tend to be lower in magnitude). However, I find that awards issued within
the Program are most persuasive. It is important to bear in mind the policy purposes of
the Program – that it is no-fault and is intended to be generous in many regards, resulting
in a slightly different scale (that admittedly may produce higher award values than the
non-Program comparables pointed to by Respondent). Thus, other reasoned decisions
in the Vaccine Program provide the most useful guidance in reaching an award amount
in this case. (I do not disagree, however, that Respondent might in some cases be able
to offer a comparable state-court determination, and I will evaluate such a case if it is
demonstrated to be factually relevant).
4 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (citing 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)).
3

Case 1:18-vv-01361-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 6
For the reasons discussed below, and pursuant to my oral ruling on June 26, 2020
(which is fully adopted herein), I find that $135,000.00 represents a fair and
appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering.
First, I note that Petitioner’s pain was severe relatively immediately, and prompted
her to seek treatment less than a month after her December 27, 2016 flu vaccination. Ex.
1, Ex. 2 at 6. Thereafter, she underwent significant treatment for her injury for over two
years, to include: physical therapy,5 four steroid injections,6 three MRI scans,7 massage
therapy (Ex. 24), acupuncture (Exs. 5 and 25), and arthroscopic surgery (Ex. 9 at 4-6).
Second, Petitioner’s medical records evidence she suffered a fairly severe injury.
Although Petitioner’s reported pain levels fluctuated during her treatment and prior to her
surgery, most frequently she reported a pain level of eight out of ten.8 Her injury as
evidenced on MRI was particularly significant. The impression from Petitioner’s April 4,
2018 MRI included: “tendinosis and partial-thickness tears of both the supraspinatus and
infraspinatus tendons extending to the bursal surface,” [m]ild supraspinatus and
infraspinatus muscle edema without significant atrophy,” and “subacromial-subdeltoid
bursitis.” Ex. 9 at 2-3. Petitioner’s treatment culminated in a significant surgical procedure
on May 15, 2018 – a left shoulder arthroscopic subacromial decompression, arthroscopic
biceps tenotomy with glenohumeral debridement, and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Ex.
9 at 4-6.
However, Petitioner made a substantial recovery subsequent to her surgical
intervention and after completing additional physical therapy. Her last filed physical
therapy record from August 31, 2018, reflects a pain level of two out of ten and good
range of motion, but ongoing weakness and persistent pain. Ex. 10 at 92. At a follow-up
appointment on October 31, 2018, she reported she still had some pain, but “I can finally
5 The exact amount of physical therapy Petitioner completed is not clear. Petitioner filed medical records
from Shore Wellness Center evidencing two physical therapy appointments prior to her surgery. Ex. 4.
However, a signed statement from physical therapist Sheela N. Iyer indicates Petitioner was seen by her
for an additional sixteen pre-surgery appointments beginning on October 31, 2017. Ex. 21. Additionally,
Petitioner filed medical records evidencing she completed 22 physical therapy appointments at Professional
Orthopedics Associates post-surgery with clinician Sheela Iyer. The last filed record is from August 31,
2018. Ex. 10 at 92. However, the signed statement from Ms. Iyer indicates Petitioner engaged in 25 post-
surgery appointments and was discharged on October 10, 2018. Ex. 21.
6 Petitioner received steroid injections on the following dates: January 26, 2017 (Ex. 3 at 3-4), May 19,
2017 (Ex. 3 at 6, 8), October 27, 2017 (Ex. 3 at 18-19), and February 14, 2018 (Ex. 9 at 11).
7 Petitioner’s MRI scans occurred on the following dates: 1/21/2017 (Ex. 3 at 26), 6/17/2017 (Ex. 3 at 28),
and 4/4/2018 (Ex. 23 at 3-4).
8 On January 27, 2017, Petitioner’s pain level was 5/10. Ex. 4 at 1. However, on 7/25/2017, her pain level
was reported to be 10/10. Ex. 6 at 9. Thereafter, on 8/16/2017, 9/27/17, and 4/13/18 her pain level was
reported to be an 8/10. Ex. 6 at 1, 5, and 7. However, on 11/22/2017 her pain level was reported to be
2/10. Ex. 6 at 3.
4

Case 1:18-vv-01361-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 6
move my arm without screaming.” Ex. 23 at 6. She did not seek further treatment until
May 15, 2019 – over seven months later at her one-year post-surgery follow-up
appointment – at that time Petitioner reported “[t]hank God it’s over” and that she felt
good. Ex. 23 at 5.
In making my determination, I have fully considered Petitioner’s signed statement,
and those of her family members, friends, and coworkers, all of which detail the limitations
in her overall enjoyment of life, work duties, and exercise of daily functions attributable to
her injuries. Exs. 11-20, 22, 27.
I find that Petitioner’s injury is comparable to, but not as severe as, the injury
experienced by the petitioner in the Reed case cited by Petitioner in support of her
proposed award. Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL
1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2019) (awarding $160,000.00 for past pain and
suffering and $4,931.06 in unreimbursable medical expenses). While Petitioner suffered
a significant injury for over two years which required extensive treatment, she ultimately
made a strong recovery subsequent to surgery. In contrast, the Reed petitioner
experienced what she described as a “failed surgery” and reported considerable pain
nearly two and a half years subsequent to the onset of her injury. Id. at *15-16. In fact,
although the petitioner in Reed was unable to establish entitlement to an award of future
pain and suffering, she remained under the care of pain management specialists and
continued to require the pain medication Tramadol to treat her injury. Id. at *9,11, 16. In
this case, however, Ms. Blanco no longer remains under medical care for her injury.
Finally, the Reed petitioner’s physical ability to care for a young child with an ADHD
autism spectrum disorder was negatively impacted by her injury – a factor not present in
the instant case. Id. at *11, 16.
I thus find the amount awarded In Reed to exceed what is appropriate in this case,
given such dissimilarities. Rather, this case is more in line with – although somewhat
more severe than – Dobbins and Rafferty, where awards similar to what I am allowing
herein were obtained. Dobbins v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-0854V, 2018
WL 4611267 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 15, 2018) (awarding $125,000.00 for pain and
suffering and $3,143.80 in unreimbursable medical expenses); Rafferty v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2020)
(awarding $127,500.00 for pain and suffering and $4,154.04 in unreimbursable medical
expenses).
5

Case 1:18-vv-01361-UNJ Document 48 Filed 08/05/20 Page 6 of 6
IV. Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $136,140.52, representing compensation of $135,000.00 for
her past pain and suffering, plus $1,140.52 for her past unreimbursed expenses.
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.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9 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.
6