VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00184
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00184
Petitioner: Janis Edminster
Filed: 2019-01-31
Decided: 2023-04-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-05
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 220005

AI-assisted case summary:
Janis Edminster filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 5, 2016. The respondent conceded that Ms. Edminster was entitled to compensation, agreeing that her injury met the criteria for SIRVA on the Vaccine Injury Table and that she met the statutory severity requirement of suffering residual effects for more than six months. The case proceeded to a damages determination, as the parties could not agree on compensation. Ms. Edminster's medical history details nearly five years of treatment for her left shoulder pain, which began shortly after the vaccination. Her treatment included two shoulder surgeries, multiple rounds of physical therapy totaling over 111 sessions, and a cortisone injection that caused an adverse reaction. The respondent argued for an award of $170,000 for pain and suffering, while Ms. Edminster sought $205,000, citing comparable cases. The Special Master found Ms. Edminster's case comparable to prior decisions awarding $200,000-$205,000 for pain and suffering, considering the severity and nearly five-year duration of her injury, which included two surgeries and extensive treatment. Ultimately, the court awarded Ms. Edminster $205,000 for pain and suffering and an additional $15,005.36 to satisfy a Medicaid lien, for a total award of $220,005.36.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00184-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-06-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/29/2022) regarding 44 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0184V
UNPUBLISHED
JANIS EDMINSTER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 29, 2022
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)
Kristina E. Grigorian, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 31, 2019, Janis Edminster 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 5,
2016. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered in the United
States, her injury lasted for longer than six months, and she has not filed a civil action or
received compensation in the form of an award or civil settlement for her vaccine-related
injury. Petition at ¶¶ 6, 47-49. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/16/22 Page 2 of 2
On April 28, 2022, 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 agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for
SIRVA.” Id. at 8. Respondent further agrees that the records show that petitioner timely
filed the case, she received the flu vaccine in the United States, and she 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_19-vv-00184-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-24
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/23/2023) regarding 53 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0184V
UNPUBLISHED
JANIS EDMINSTER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 23, 2023
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)
Kristina E. Grigorian, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 31, 2019, Janis Edminster 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 alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 5,
2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters, and although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties have
been unable to agree to damages.
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 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 13
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $205,000.00, all of which is for actual pain and suffering.
In addition, I award $15,005.36 for satisfaction of a Medicaid lien.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Petitioner filed medical records and an affidavit on February 6, 2019 (ECF Nos. 6-
7). On January 14, 2020, Respondent indicated that the case may be appropriate for
informal resolution, and the parties began negotiations (ECF No. 17). However, on March
15, 2022, Petitioner reported that the parties had reached an impasse (ECF No. 42).
On April 28, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report conceding that Petitioner
was entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA, and a ruling on entitlement was entered
the following day (ECF Nos. 43, 44). Thereafter, the parties again attempted negotiations,
but these also failed (ECF No. 48).
Petitioner filed a damages brief on August 30, 2022 (ECF No. 49). Respondent
responded on October 31, 2022, and Petitioner replied on December 15, 2022 (ECF Nos.
50, 52). The issue of damages is now ripe for resolution.
II. Relevant Medical History
On October 5, 2016, while hospitalized for symptoms of a possible transient
ischemic attack, Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left arm. Ex. 3 at 8. After being
transferred to another hospital, she reported that the night before she experienced
tightness across her chest radiating to her back and down her left arm and jaw. Ex. 4 at
2. On October 6, 2016, she again reported “intermittent left arm and jaw tightness, lasting
few seconds and resolves.” Id. at 48. On October 7, 2016, she reported pain in her left
arm described as “radiating to left jaw, left shoulder to left wrist” at a level of 4 out of 10.
Id. at 327. She also reported occasional “chest/shoulder pain with musculoskeletal
nature.” Id. at 46. She was diagnosed with a cardiac condition and discharged. Id. at 2.
On October 11, 2016, Petitioner was seen by neurologist Dr. Rajiv Pathak. Ex. 11
at 45. Dr. Pathak noted that Petitioner had weakness and pain in her left arm, which was
improving. Id. He recommended that she take ibuprofen as needed for pain in her left arm
and neck. Id. at 47.
Petitioner was seen by Dr. Samuel Ceridon of Marshall Family Medicine on
December 8, 2016 to follow up on her cardiac condition and left arm pain. Ex. 11 at 20.
She reported left arm pain radiating up to her neck and down her arm for two months,
since her hospitalization, and requested a referral to a specialist. Id. She attributed the
pain to a flu injection. Id. Dr. Ceridon ordered an MRI. Id.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 3 of 13
Petitioner returned to Dr. Ceridon on December 29, 2016 to follow up on her left
arm pain and weakness. Ex. 11 at 16. She reported that her pain persisted but had
improved. Id. She reported that a shoulder MRI was denied, and reluctantly agreed to try
physical therapy (“PT”). Id.
On January 17, 2017, Petitioner underwent a PT evaluation for her left shoulder.
Ex. 3 at 23. She reported that while hospitalized she received a flu shot, and thereafter
began experiencing left arm weakness and left shoulder pain. Id. Over time, the pain
spread down the entire left upper extremity to her wrist and over the left upper trapezius
into the left cervical paraspinals. Id. She reported pain levels of 3/10 at best and 8/10 at
worst. Id. On examination, her left shoulder passive range of motion (“ROM”) was limited
to 130 degrees of flexion, 90 degrees of abduction, 25 degrees of external rotation in 90
degrees of abduction, and 0 degrees of internal rotation in 90 degrees of adduction, all of
which were painful.3 Id. at 25. She was assessed as having decreased ROM and strength,
with possible development of some left shoulder adhesive capsulitis. Id. A treatment plan
was established for her to treat twice a week for five weeks. Id. at 26.
On January 31, 2017, Petitioner followed up with Dr. Ceridon about her left
shoulder pain and an unrelated health matter. Ex. 11 at 13. The record indicated that her
PT evaluation “was indicative of a Neuromuscular reaction to the injection.” Id. Dr.
Ceridon explained that it was normal for her arm to feel worse and weaker after the first
few PT sessions, and recommended that she continue PT. Id.
On February 2, 2017, Petitioner returned to Dr. Pathak, who noted that she was
experiencing intermittent left shoulder pain, for which she took ibuprofen. Ex. 11 at 37.
Petitioner was later seen by nurse practitioner (“NP”) Vickie Crosby of Marshall Family
Medicine on February 28, 2017 to follow up on her left shoulder pain. Ex. 11 at 10. She
reported that she had gained ROM through PT, but that her pain was unchanged. Id. On
examination, she exhibited limited ROM and was highly sensitive to the TENS4 unit
electrode at the site of injection, her deltoid, but experienced some relief at a very low
setting. Id. at 11. A TENS trial was recommended, along with an ointment. Id. She was
instructed not to use NSAIDs. Id.
3 Normal shoulder ROM for adults ranges from 165 to 180 degrees in flexion, 170 to 180 degrees in
abduction, 90 to 100 degrees in external rotation, and 70 to 90 degrees in internal rotation. Cynthia C.
Norkin and D. Joyce White, MEASUREMENT OF JOINT MOTION: A GUIDE TO GONIOMETRY 72, 80, 84, 88 (F. A.
Davis Co., 5th ed. 2016).
4 TENS is an abbreviation for transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, which involves electrical
stimulation of nerves that interferes with transmission of pain signals. TENS and transcutaneous electrical
nerve stimulation, DORLAND’S ONLINE, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=108464 (last
visited Mar. 23, 2023).
3

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 4 of 13
On March 16, 2017, Petitioner returned to NP Crosby to return the TENS unit. Ex.
11 at 8. She reported that the TENS unit made her deltoid pain much worse, but improved
her trapezius pain from a severity of 9/10 to 3-5/10. Id. She reported improved shoulder
mobility. Id. She was still experiencing pain, especially at night. Id. NP Crosby believed
that Petitioner’s injection site may have nerve damage. Id.
Petitioner attended 14 PT sessions between January 17 and July 6, 2017. Ex. 6 at
3-13; 7 at 59-62. Initially, she experienced pain levels between five and eight out of ten.
Id. In March 2017, her pain levels improved to one or two out of ten. Ex. 6 at 3-4. However,
her pain levels rebounded to four to five out of ten in May and July 2017. Ex. 7 at 59-62.
Petitioner returned to NP Crosby on September 15, 2017, concerning her left
shoulder pain. Ex. 11 at 2. The record indicates that Petitioner had seen PT for two rounds
with improvement in ROM, and wished to return to PT. Id. She was given a PT referral
and an MRI order. Id. at 3.
On October 3, 2017, Petitioner underwent another PT evaluation for her left
shoulder pain. Ex. 7 at 37. She reported that her left shoulder pain had increased, and
her shoulder had become more stiff. Id. She reported a shooting and electrical type of
pain that ranged from 3-8/10, with intermittent tingling in her left hand and pain in her left
elbow. Id. She also reported pain over her left upper trapezius and left posterior cervical
paraspinals. Id. She reported that pain woke her up every night. Id. She was unable to do
any heavy lifting or overhead lifting, and was not able to reach behind her back to fasten
her bra or wash her lower back due to pain. Id. On examination, her left shoulder passive
ROM was 140 degrees in flexion, 100 degrees in abduction, 50 degrees of external
rotation, and 45 degrees of internal rotation. Id. at 38. She was assessed as having left
shoulder pain, decreased strength, and decreased ROM, resulting in difficulty performing
her regular activities of daily living. Id. Her treatment plan was to treat twice a week for
six weeks. Id. at 39.
Petitioner attended approximately nine additional PT sessions between October
2017 and January 2018. Ex. 7 at 1-33. During this time, her pain levels varied between
two to five out of ten. Id.
Petitioner underwent a left shoulder MRI on May 4, 2018. Ex. 8 at 1. The MRI
revealed extensive tendinosis/tendinitis of the supraspinatus with probable associated
articular surface partial tear, mild osteoarthritis, and minimal joint effusion and possible
mild subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis. Id. at 1-2.
On May 31, 2018, Petitioner was seen by orthopedist Dr. Brandon Beamer for left
shoulder pain. Ex. 9 at 17. Petitioner reported that she had had left shoulder pain for over
4

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 5 of 13
a year. Id. She reported pain radiating to the deltoid tuberosity that she related to a flu
shot. Id. On examination, her left shoulder ROM was roughly symmetrical to the right side.
Id. at 19. She had a mildly positive Speed test, and strongly positive Neer and Hawkins
impingement tests. Id. at 20. Dr. Beamer administered a steroid injection, and noted that
Petitioner “seemed to have a reaction after the injection,” reporting numbness of her
tongue and that she felt dizzy and tremulous. Id. He noted that she felt better after about
15 minutes. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Beamer on July 31, 2018. Ex. 9 at 9. She reported that
she felt much better after the cortisone injection. Id. On examination, her left shoulder
ROM was unchanged from the previous visit. Id. at 12. Dr. Beamer noted that she had
signs of biceps tendinitis, and in his view there was an inflammatory component to her
condition. Id. at 9. He referred Petitioner for PT and provided a diclofenac prescription for
inflammation. Id.
On October 23, 2018, Petitioner followed up with Dr. Beamer concerning her left
shoulder pain. Ex. 9 at 1. Petitioner reported that she had been doing scapular stabilizing
taping at PT which helped, signifying that there was an impingement component. Id. Her
predominant difficulty was with overhead activities. Id. On examination, she had full active
ROM. Id. at 4. She had positive Neer’s impingement signs, and mildly positive Hawkins
impingement signs. Id. Dr. Beamer provided an additional PT referral. Id. Petitioner was
directed to return in six weeks, and if she was not improving they would discuss
arthroscopy. Id.
Petitioner attended approximately 14 additional PT sessions between August 2018
and January 2019. Exs. 12 at 81-107; 16 at 159-164. Her pain levels ranged from zero to
seven out of ten. Id. At her August 15, 2018 appointment, she reported that her worst pain
in the past one to three months had been between eight and ten out of ten. Ex. 12 at 81.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Beamer on February 7, 2019 with continued significant
left shoulder dysfunction. Ex. 16 at 152. She continued to have difficulty reaching
overhead, and was waking at night due to her shoulder. Id. On examination, she had full
active ROM but significant pain with Jobe’s maneuver. Id. at 154. She had moderately
positive belly test results, a strongly positive speeds test, and positive Neer and Hawkins
impingement tests. Id. Because her condition was not improving despite a cortisone
injection and PT, he determined that arthroscopic left shoulder surgery was indicated. Id.
at 155.
Petitioner underwent left shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair of the
subscapularis and supraspinatus, as well as arthroscopic subacromial decompression,
on July 15, 2019. Ex. 22 at 30.
5

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 6 of 13
On July 24, 2019, Petitioner underwent a postoperative PT evaluation. Ex. 17 at
39. She reported a pain level of two out of ten at present, but nine out of ten at worst. Id.
She reported a pain level of eight out of ten when changing positions between sitting and
supine positions. Id. Her passive ROM in flexion was 0-50 degrees, and she exhibited
significant fear and guarding. Id. at 39-40. She was unable to perform many activities of
daily living, such as opening a tight or new jar, carrying a shopping bag or briefcase,
washing her back, or using a knife to cut food. Id. at 34.
On December 17, 2019, Petitioner returned to Dr. Beamer. Ex 22 at 11. She
reported worsening pain and dysfunction. Id. On examination, she exhibited pain and
weakness with Jobe’s maneuver, which Dr. Beamer interpreted as suggesting possible
re-tearing of her rotator cuff. Id. at 14. She was tender along the bicipital groove, and had
positive Speed’s impingement signs. Id. Dr. Beamer ordered another shoulder MRI. Id. at
11.
Petitioner underwent a second left shoulder MRI on December 28, 2019. Ex. 22 at
38. The MRI revealed tendinopathy of the supraspinatus tendon, without evidence of a
tear. Id. at 39. There was fluid in the subacromial and subdeltoid spaces, which was
deemed likely bursitis. Id. There was a small glenohumeral joint effusion and arthrosis.
Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Beamer on January 3, 2020. Ex. 22 at 6. She reported
that her pain was worsening. Id. Dr. Beamer noted that the second MRI showed bursitis,
but no repeat tear. Id. He noted that Petitioner had “a terrible reaction to a cortisone shot”
he had done previously. Id. On examination, her left shoulder passive ROM was full, but
her active ROM was limited to about 140 degrees of forward flexion. Id. at 9. Impingement
maneuvers caused pain, as did speeds test; however, she was nontender over the
bicipital groove. Id. Dr. Beamer did not suspect infection, and prescribed diclofenac and
referred Petitioner for more PT. Id.
On January 31, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Beamer. Ex. 22 at 1. Diclofenac
was helping, but Dr. Beamer stated that he could not keep her on that long term. Id. On
examination, her left shoulder passive ROM was slightly reduced. Id. at 4. Dr. Beamer
discussed doing a platelet rich plasma injection “since she is allergic to cortisone.” Id.
Petitioner attended 42 PT sessions between July 2019 and June 2020. Exs. 17 at
3-39; 23 at 2-42; 25 at 2-18, 99-100. In July 2019, her pain levels were between two and
nine out of ten. Ex. 17 at 33-39. However, by August 2019, her pain levels had lowered
to two out of ten. Id. at 19-23. Thereafter, her pain levels ranged from one to three from
6

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 7 of 13
September 2019 to June 2020. Exs. 17 at 3-39; 23 at 2-42; 25 at 2-18, 99-100. Her ROM
gradually improved over this time period as well. Id.
On June 11, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Beamer. Ex. 26 at 31. She reported
that her pain had not completely gone away, and she continued to experience pain with
overhead activities. Id. She also felt popping, and like “something catches” from time to
time. Id. She was not seeing much improvement with PT. Id. On examination, she had
nearly full active ROM. Id. At 34. She exhibited pain with Jobe’s maneuver, and positive
Neer and Hawkins signs. Id. Dr. Beamer assessed Petitioner with ongoing left shoulder
dysfunction nearly a year after rotator cuff repair and ordered a repeat MRI. Id.
Petitioner underwent a left shoulder MRI on June 29, 2020. Ex. 26 at 22. The MRI
revealed a probable recurrent partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon, with a suspected
pinhole full-thickness tear allowing joint effusion to enter the subacromial-subdeltoid
bursa. Id. The MRI also revealed probable mild tendinosis/tendinitis of the infraspinatus
and subscapularis and mild to moderate osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral and
acromioclavicular joints. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Beamer on July 16, 2020 to review the MRI findings. Ex.
26 at 13. On examination, she was “very tender” over the bicipital groove. Id. at 16. She
had pain with Jobe’s maneuver, a strongly positive O’Brien’s test, and positive Neer and
Hawkins signs. Id. She reported two or three episodes a day of sharp pain in her shoulder
and a catching sensation, which Dr. Beamer deemed unacceptable. Id. He noted that she
was “allergic to cortisone injection so we cannot do that,” and determined that the only
reasonable option was to reexplore the shoulder repair surgically. Id.
Petitioner underwent a second left shoulder surgery on November 30, 2020. Ex.
27 at 7. Dr. Beamer performed a revision to a left rotator cuff repair, extensive intra-
articular debridement, and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Id.
On December 15, 2020, Petitioner had a post-operative consult with Dr. Beamer.
Ex. 29 at 9. She reported less pain than after the prior surgery. Id. On examination, her
incisions were well-healed, and there were no signs of infection. Id. at 12. She was
directed to wear a sling for four weeks, and return in a month. Id.
Petitioner was seen by Dr. Beamer on January 12, 2021, reporting that she was
doing well and her biceps pain was gone. Ex. 29 at 2. She had stiffness from surgery. Id.
On examination, her forward flexion was limited to about 95 degrees with pain, external
rotation in adduction was 20 degrees, and abduction 80 degrees. Id. at 5.
7

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 8 of 13
Petitioner attended another 31 PT sessions between December 2020 and
September 2021. Ex. 28 at 1-26; 30 at 1-15; 31 at 1-10; 33 at 1-14. In December 2020,
her pain levels ranged between four and eight out of 10, and her passive ROM was 80
degrees in flexion, 25 degrees in external rotation, 40 degrees in internal rotation, and 45
degrees in abduction. Ex. 28 at 26. Her pain levels gradually improved, and by February
2021 her pain levels were one out of ten at best and four out of ten at worst. Id. at 8. Her
ROM gradually improved over time, and by February 2021 she exhibited passive ROM of
155 degrees in flexion, 60 degrees in external rotation, and 40 degrees in internal rotation.
Id. By May 2021, at best she had no pain, and at worst it was five out of ten. Ex. 31 at 2.
At her final PT appointment on September 3, 2021, she had no pain at best, and four out
of ten at worst. Ex. 33 at 1. However, she was “still unable to lift arm all the way overhead
due to pain and catching sensation.” Id.
III. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner filed an affidavit in support of her claim. Ex. 1. Petitioner avers that she
developed pain in her left shoulder and upper arm immediately after vaccine
administration. Id. at ¶ 7. She states that she reported her shoulder pain to emergency
personnel who transported her by ambulance to another hospital, and reported it at the
second hospital while undergoing treatment for a heart condition as well, and
consequently received pain medication. Id. at ¶ 8. During her hospitalization, she
continued to experience severe left arm pain, and continued to receive pain medication
for it. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.
Petitioner averred that when she reported for PT, she was experiencing difficulties
getting dressed, washing her hair, and reaching behind her back. Ex. 1 at ¶ 19. She
asserts that on May 31, 2018 she underwent a cortisone injection, after which she felt
dizzy, her tongue went numb, and she had convulsions for several minutes and was
unable to talk or move. Id. at ¶ 39. She states that Dr. Beamer told her that she had an
allergic reaction to the injection, and should not have it again. Id.
IV. The Parties’ Arguments
A review of the briefs reveals little factual disagreement.5 The parties agree that
Petitioner’s injury duration was approximately five years; that she underwent two shoulder
5 At most ,the parties present certain events differently, with Petitioner asserting that she experienced a
severe allergic reaction, including dizziness, numbness, convulsions, and transient inability to talk or move,
to a cortisone injection while Respondent asserts that Petitioner was lightheaded and monitored for 15
minutes. Br. at 11; Opp. at 6. Respondent also asserts that Petitioner’s treatment included three rounds of
PT, with 39 sessions before the first surgery and 72 sessions between July 24, 2019 and September 3,
2021, which would total 111 sessions. Opp. at 4,10. Petitioner, however, describes her PT as “at least 5
rounds of physical therapy totaling 112 physical therapy sessions.” Petitioner’s Reply at 2. I need not
resolve these disputes, however, since they are not material to my ultimate finding on pain and suffering.
8

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 9 of 13
surgeries; and that her treatment included one cortisone injection, at least 111 physical
therapy sessions, and pain medication. Petitioner’s Brief (“Br.”) at 1; Respondent’s
Opposition (“Opp.”) at 4, 8, 10. The parties further agree on the amount of the Medicaid
lien ($15,005.36), to be paid for treatment costs Petitioner incurred in association with her
SIRVA. Br. at 23; Opp. at 2 n.1. Thus, only pain and suffering is disputed.
Petitioner asserts that I should award $205,000.00 in pain and suffering, given the
severity of her SIRVA. Br. at 18, 23. She believes her case is similar to not less than six
prior decisions, though she particularly highlights two cases in which the petitioners
received awards of $205,000 - Lawson and Elmakky.6 Br. at 23. Thus, Petitioner argues
that the award in this case should be similar. Id.
Respondent favors an award of $170,000.00 in pain and suffering as reasonable
and appropriate. Opp. at 2. Respondent cites only one comparable case, Pruitt, in which
the petitioner was awarded a slightly higher sum, $185,000.00.7 Opp. at 14-15. Pruitt
involved a petitioner who underwent two surgeries and approximately four years of active
treatment. Id. Respondent acknowledges that Ms. Edminster treated for longer, but
argues that the petitioner in Pruitt experienced a slightly higher pain rating at her last
documented office visit and received two cortisone injections and two Medrol DosePaks.
Id. Respondent also notes that the petitioner in Pruitt underwent the first surgical
intervention at ten months, compared to two years and nine months in this case,
suggesting that this means that the injury in this case did not require as urgent attention.
Id.
Respondent also speculates that Petitioner’s age, and likely associated age-
related shoulder pathologies, may have contributed to her symptoms. Opp. at 10-14. And
he seeks to distinguish the cases relied on by Petitioner. Opp. at 11-13. The Lawson
petitioner, for example, underwent three surgeries, seven steroid injections, four rounds
of PT, six MRIs, and received platelet-rich plasma injections, which Respondent
characterizes as “unquestionably more interventions than petitioner in this case.” Opp. at
13. Elmakky involved three surgeries over four years, though (as Respondent admits)
Ms. Edminster actually treated for slightly longer. Id. Respondent distinguishes
6 Lawson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0882V, 2021 WL 688560 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
5, 2021); Elmakky v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-2032V, 2021 WL 6285619 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Dec. 3, 2021).
7 Pruitt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-0757V, 2021 WL 5292022 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 29,
2021).
9

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 10 of 13
McDorman8 because that petitioner underwent her first surgery much sooner, five months
after vaccination.
V. 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 awarding such expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-
related injury for which the 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).
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 (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)).
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 that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.9 Hodges v. Sec’y of
8 McDorman v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-814V, 2021 WL 5504698 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 18, 2021).
9 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
10

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 11 of 13
Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated that 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. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
The Graves court maintained that to 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 589-90. Instead, Graves
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 593-95. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely
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
VI. 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.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole to include the
medical records and affidavits filed and all assertions made by the parties in written
documents. I consider 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 determination on the circumstances of this case.
Ms. Edminster complained of shoulder pain within a day of vaccine administration,
and treated until fifty-nine months – nearly five years – thereafter. She underwent two
shoulder surgeries, one cortisone injection with an adverse reaction, and at least 111
sessions of PT. She experienced moderate restrictions in ROM. While she did not
undergo surgery until nearly three years after vaccination, during that timeframe she
engaged in 39 PT sessions and received a cortisone injection, undercutting Respondent’s
suggestion that the surgery delay alone proved a lack of urgency.
Respondent cites only one case, Pruitt, which I find not to be comparable to this
assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the
majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
11

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 12 of 13
case and therefore not particularly helpful. While the overall duration of the injury in Pruitt
is similar, the petitioner in that case had a nearly two year gap in treatment. Pruitt at *3.
In this case, other than intermittent gaps of three to seven months, Petitioner treated
consistently for nearly five years. In addition, the petitioner in Pruitt appears to have
attended only 14 PT sessions, compared to nearly tenfold more here.
This case is most comparable to Lawson and McDorman. The Lawson petitioner
underwent three shoulder surgeries (although I questioned whether the final one was fully
attributable to her SIRVA). Lawson at *5-6. The petitioner in that case also received seven
cortisone injections, four rounds of PT with 28 sessions, and platelet rich plasma
injections. Id. The petitioner in the present case underwent two surgeries, one cortisone
injection with an adverse reaction, and five rounds of PT totaling 111 sessions. I awarded
$200,000.00 in pain and suffering in McDorman.10 That petitioner also underwent two
surgeries and multiple rounds of PT. Both petitioners had an approximately two to three
year period of more intensely painful injury. The petitioner in McDorman had several more
cortisone injections, while Ms. Edminster attended dozens more PT sessions and had an
overall longer duration of injury.
The sole case Respondent relies on, Pruitt, is simply not comparable to this case.
Even if it were, it would not support Respondent’s proposed award of $170,000.00, given
that the petitioner in Pruitt was awarded $185,000. In my view, the fact that Respondent
has not cited any cases that support his proposed award suggests that Respondent
cannot defend his own position, and weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
Respondent’s contention that I should discount Petitioner’s damages because her
MRIs showed degenerative changes is not persuasive. Whatever dormant shoulder
pathology Petitioner may have had prior to vaccination, I find it compelling that before
vaccination Petitioner was not symptomatic, yet after vaccination she was. Indeed,
Petitioner’s shoulder pain was immediately concerning enough that she reported it during
a hospitalization for a more serious condition relating to her heart.
Petitioner suffered a SIRVA injury that was in the mild to moderate range, but
continued for a significant amount of time, fifty-nine months, and involved surgery and
significant amounts of treatment. Petitioner has cited reasonable comparables that
support her position, while Respondent has not. I find that Petitioner has substantiated
the amount sought for past pain and suffering.
10 McDorman v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-814V, 2021 WL 5504698 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 18, 2021).
12

Case 1:19-vv-00184-UNJ Document 57 Filed 04/24/23 Page 13 of 13
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $205,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.11
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award
Petitioner the following:
• A lump sum payment of $205,000.00 (for actual pain and suffering), in the
form of a check payable to Petitioner; and
• A lump sum payment of $15,005.36, representing compensation for
satisfaction of a State of California Medi-Cal lien, in the form of a check
payable jointly to Petitioner and:
Department of Health Care Services
Recovery Branch – MS 4720
P.O. Box 997421
Sacramento, CA 95899-7421
DHCS Account Number C93371863F-VAC03
Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to the Department of Health Care
Services, State of California, for satisfaction of the California Medicaid lien.
These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.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 & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. 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.
13