VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01747
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01747
Petitioner: Tiffany Lee Drake
Filed: 2018-11-09
Decided: 2020-08-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-25
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 126859

AI-assisted case summary:
Tiffany Lee Drake filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on November 9, 2018, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccination on October 25, 2017. The respondent conceded that her claim met the Table criteria for SIRVA, and the court found her entitled to compensation. The case proceeded to a damages award. The court awarded Tiffany Lee Drake $126,859.13, consisting of $1,859.13 for past medical expenses and $125,000.00 for actual pain and suffering. The injury involved severe pain, limited range of motion, adhesive capsulitis, bursitis, shoulder impingement syndrome, and a longitudinal split tear of the infraspinatus tendon, requiring physical therapy and arthroscopic surgery. She continued to experience pain, soreness, and limited range of motion, with a 39% shoulder impairment at the time of her affidavit.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01747-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-05-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/27/2020) regarding 43 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01747-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/27/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1747V
UNPUBLISHED
TIFFANY LEE DRAKE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 27, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On November 9, 2018, Tiffany Lee Drake 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”) vaccination administered on
October 25, 2017. Amended Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On March 24, 2020, 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 “[m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury
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).

Case 1:18-vv-01747-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/27/20 Page 2 of 2
Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), have
reviewed the facts of this case and concluded that [P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table
criteria for SIRVA.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that this case was timely filed,
the vaccine was received in the United States, and that “[P]etitioner satisfies the
statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her
injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” 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-01747-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-08-12
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/07/2020) regarding 48 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01747-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1747V
UNPUBLISHED
TIFFANY LEE DRAKE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 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)
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 9, 2018, Tiffany Lee Drake 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 that was
administered on October 25, 2017. Amended Petition at 1.3 The case was assigned to
the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
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.
3 On March 19, 2019, Petitioner filed an amended petition to correct the date of vaccination from September
14, 2017 to October 25, 2017. ECF No. 13.

Case 1:18-vv-01747-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 5
For the reasons set forth below, and as I represented during the June 26, 2020
motions hearing,4 I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages in the amount
$126,859.13, consisting of $1,859.13 for past medical expenses, and $125,000.00
for actual pain and suffering.
I. Relevant Procedural History
As noted above, the case was initiated in November 2018. On December 6, 2019,
Respondent filed a status report indicating his willingness to entertain a settlement
demand. ECF No. 27. Thereafter, the parties attempted to informally resolve the issue of
damages but reached an impasse on an appropriate reward for actual pain and suffering.
ECF No. 33. I ultimately informed the parties that I would resolve their dispute as to
damages via a motions hearing, and held that hearing on June 26, 2020.5
The parties argued for damages based on briefing completed prior to the motions
hearing. Thus, on April 2, 2020, Petitioner filed a damages brief requesting that I award
$150,000.00 for pain and suffering. Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages at 2, 14. ECF
No. 39. On April 24, 2020, Respondent filed a damages brief proposing a pain and
suffering award of $85,000.00. Respondent’s Brief on Damages at 1. ECF No. 42. Finally,
on April 30, 2020, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent’s brief reaffirming her request.
Petitioner’s Reply Brief at 1. ECF No. 45. The parties otherwise agree that an award of
$1,859.13 in compensation for Petitioner’s previously-incurred expenses is appropriate,
and there are no other damages components in contention beyond pain and suffering.
ECF No. 44.
II. Legal Standard
I have discussed at length the legal standard to be considered in determining an
appropriate award of pain and suffering for a SIRVA injury in several recent decisions. I
fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in sections V and VI of 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).
4 See Minute Entry dated June 26, 2020. The transcript of this hearing, which was not yet filed as of the
date of this Decision, is hereby incorporated into this Damages Decision by reference.
5 Order, issued April 13, 2020 (ECF No. 40) at 1. On April 6, 2020, the parties indicated they could participate
in an expedited hearing on June 26, 2020. Joint Status Report, filed April 27, 2020 (ECF No. 44).
2

Case 1:18-vv-01747-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/12/20 Page 3 of 5
In sum, compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “actual
and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury,
[in] 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).
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
Pain and suffering is the sole disputed damages component herein, so only the
legal standards bearing on its calculation are relevant. In this case, awareness of the
injury is not at issue - Petitioner was at all times 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.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole to include the
medical records and affidavit filed and all assertions made by the parties in written
documents and at the expedited hearing held on June 26, 2020. I have also considered
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 as set forth herein:
• Ms. Drake received the flu vaccine alleged as causal on October 25, 2017.
Exhibit 2 at 1-2. Petitioner states that she experienced unusually severe pain
immediately after its administration. Ex. 3 at 1;
• Petitioner presented to an urgent care center on November 21, 2017 for an
evaluation of her right shoulder. Ex. 6 at 5-12. She was found to have limited
range of motion and was diagnosed with right shoulder pain, adhesive
capsulitis and “vaccination side effects.” Id. at 9. Bursitis and shoulder
impingement syndrome were also noted. Id. at 11-12;
• In addition to consulting with an orthopedic surgeon, in December 2017,
Petitioner received a steroid injection and underwent an MRI. Ex. 8 at 6, 37;
Ex. 3 at 2. The MRI revealed “abnormal edema involving the distal portions of
the infraspinous muscle as well as the infraspinous tendon.” Ex. 7 at 2;
• Between December 27, 2017, and January 19, 2018, Petitioner completed ten
sessions of physical therapy. Ex. 9 at 81-118. While the note documenting her
initial evaluation indicates that Petitioner rated her pain as a four on a ten-point
scale, her discharge note reports that her pain had increased to a six. Id. at 93;
3

Case 1:18-vv-01747-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/12/20 Page 4 of 5
• Between January 29, 2017 and May 7, 2017, Ms. Drake continued to suffer
from severe pain. Ex. 3 at 2-3. On May 18, 2017, after receiving a second MRI
that revealed a longitudinal split tear of the infraspinatus tendon with edema
and fluid in the infraspinatus tendon and glenohumeral joint, her orthopedist
recommended arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression
surgery. Ex. 7 at 5, Ex. 8 at 11;
• Ms. Drake underwent right arthroscopic surgery with extensive debridement on
May 29, 2018. Ex. 8 at 13-14. Her postoperative diagnosis was right shoulder
impairment with extensive subdeltoid bursitis. Id. at 13;
• From May 31 to August 24, 2018, Ms. Drake completed 19 sessions of physical
therapy. Ex. 9 at 2-72. At the time of her initial evaluation, Petitioner reported
“significant stiffness and loss of mobility.” Id. at 71. At discharge, Petitioner
reported intermittent spiking pain with certain movements. Id. at 2. Moreover,
she continued to have limited range of motion and a 39% shoulder impairment.
Id; and
• In her affidavit, signed November 9, 2018, Petitioner states that she continues
to have pain, soreness, and limited range of motion in her right shoulder. Ex. 3
at 3. She further states that she still has difficulty with daily activities involving
the use of her shoulder, such as lifting, carrying and driving. Id.
The case record overall thus establishes that Petitioner experienced ten months
of moderate levels of pain and limited range of motion in her right shoulder. Despite ten
sessions of physical therapy and a corticosteroid injection, Petitioner underwent
arthroscopic surgery approximately seven months after her receipt of the flu vaccine.
Following this procedure, Petitioner underwent an additional 19 sessions of physical
therapy. Upon completion, Petitioner continued to experience lingering problems and
was determined to have a 39% shoulder disability.
The above-described course is similar to the petitioner in Dobbins v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 16-0854V, 2018 WL 4611267, at *13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 15, 2018). The Dobbins petitioner was awarded $125,000.00 for pain and suffering
from a “mild to moderate painful injury,” and where the petitioner participated in
approximately 50 sessions of physical therapy, received one cortisone injection, and
underwent arthroscopic surgery, but whose symptoms were largely resolved within six
months of vaccination. See also Nute v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0140V,
2019 WL 6125008, at *12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 6, 2018)(awarding $125,000.00 for
pain and suffering to a petitioner who was found to suffer from moderate to severe SIVA
4

Case 1:18-vv-01747-UNJ Document 54 Filed 08/12/20 Page 5 of 5
symptoms for approximately nine months post-vaccination, with less severe symptoms
for an additional one-to-two months. Petitioner received three cortisone injections,
participated in 19 sessions of physical therapy, and underwent left shoulder surgery). I
therefore find that a damages award comparable to these two cases is most warranted
given the comparable severity (reflected in overall treatment received) and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $126,859.13, consisting of $1,859.13 for medical expenses,
and $125,000 for actual pain and suffering, 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.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 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.
5