VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01061
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01061
Petitioner: Marilyn Hendricks
Filed: 2020-09-15
Decided: 2025-09-09
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-11
Condition: vasovagal syncope
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 335661

AI-assisted case summary:
Marilyn Hendricks filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 23, 2019, alleging that she suffered vasovagal syncope as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 11, 2017. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report on September 11, 2020, conceding that Ms. Hendricks was entitled to compensation, as she met the criteria for a Table injury with a presumption of causation and experienced more than six months of residual effects. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on September 15, 2020, finding Ms. Hendricks entitled to compensation. A damages hearing was held on June 10, 2025, as the parties could not agree on all damages components. Ms. Hendricks, a 23-year-old recruiter, received the flu vaccine on October 11, 2017. Shortly after, she fainted and fell, sustaining significant facial and dental injuries, including multiple mandibular fractures, fractured teeth, and lacerations. She underwent extensive medical treatment over 18 months, including multiple surgeries, dental procedures, root canals, crowns, implants, and physical therapy for jaw, neck, and shoulder pain. She experienced considerable pain, anxiety, and emotional distress. The Special Master awarded Ms. Hendricks a total of $335,661.74 in compensation. This amount included $250,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $78,661.74 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $7,000.00 for future medical care. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on September 9, 2025. Petitioner's counsel was Douglas Alan Pettit of Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin, and respondent's counsel was Jennifer Leigh Reynaud of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Marilyn Hendricks received an influenza vaccine on October 11, 2017. She alleged vasovagal syncope as a result of the vaccine. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner met the criteria for a Table injury, with onset of vasovagal syncope within one hour of vaccination and no apparent alternative cause, and that she experienced more than six months of residual effects. The Special Master found Petitioner entitled to compensation. A subsequent damages hearing resulted in an award of $335,661.74, comprising $250,000.00 for pain and suffering, $78,661.74 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $7,000.00 for future medical care. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on September 9, 2025. Petitioner's counsel was Douglas Alan Pettit, and respondent's counsel was Jennifer Leigh Reynaud.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01061-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-10-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/15/2020) regarding 18 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 20 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1061V
UNPUBLISHED
MARILYN MERKIN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 15, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Vasovagal Syncope
Respondent.
Douglas Alan Pettit, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 23, 2019, Marilyn Merkin 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 vasovagal syncope as a result of an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 11, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 11, 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 “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set
forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (‘Table’) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation,
which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of vasovagal syncope
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 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 20 Filed 10/16/20 Page 2 of 2
occurs within one hour of a flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause”.
Id. at 2. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner experienced more than six months of
residual effects. 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-01061-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-09
Pages: 15
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/06/2025 ) regarding 57 DECISION of Special Master, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 1 of 15
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1061V
MARILYN HENDRICKS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 6, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Douglas Alan Pettit, Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz, & Dolin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 23, 2019, Marilyn Hendricks 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 syncopal episode after receiving an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 11, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters. Although entitlement
was conceded, the parties could not agree on all the damages components, so a hearing
was set, and argument was heard on June 10, 2025.
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-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 2 of 15
For the reasons set forth below, and as stated during the hearing,3 I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages in the total amount of $335,661.74,
consisting of $78,661.74, for past unreimbursable expenses, $7,000.00 for future
medical expenses, and $250,000.00 for actual pain and suffering.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On September 11, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report recommending
compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 17. On September 15, 2020, I issued a
Ruling on Entitlement in Petitioner’s favor. ECF No. 18. On February 4, 2022, after initial
attempts to resolve the damages in this case were unsuccessful, I referred this case for
alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) at the request of the parties. ECF No. 34. ADR
proceedings were unsuccessful and concluded on June 23, 2023. ECF No. 41.
Thereafter, I ordered the parties to brief damages. On November 6, 2023, Petitioner filed
her brief in support of damages. ECF No. 44 (“Mot.”) Respondent filed his response on
February 23, 2024. ECF No. 46 (“Opp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply on April 23, 2024. ECF
No. 48 (“Reply”).
A damages hearing was held on June 10, 2025, and Petitioner was the sole
witness. This case is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Factual History
Ms. Hendricks was a healthy 23-year-old recruiter when she received a flu vaccine
at a CVS pharmacy located in San Francisco, California, at approximately 9:00am, on
October 11, 2017. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Ex.”) 3 at 3. She exited the CVS, crossed the
street, and fainted, striking her face on the sidewalk. Ex. 2 at 16, 23. According to
witnesses, Ms. Hendricks lost consciousness for about five to ten seconds before being
transported to the emergency department (“ED”) at Zuckerberg San Francisco General
Hospital by ambulance. Id. at 16. During her testimony, Ms. Hendricks recalled waking
up in the ambulance, feeling confused, and seeing blood on her hands and down her
neck along with experiencing severe pain in her lip and nose. Tr. at 8.
Upon arrival at the hospital, Ms. Hendricks recalled having to wait several hours to
be seen. Tr. at 9. She testified that it took a long time just to “put me in the queue to get
analyzed.” Id. Ms. Hendricks stated that during that long wait, she was in excruciating
pain “for quite a long time.” Id. She eventually underwent a CT scan of her head, face,
and spine which demonstrated a mildly displaced fracture of the anterior nasal spine and
multiple mandibular fractures, and mandible soft tissue swelling with scattered bone
3 See Minute Entry dated June 10, 2025.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 3 of 15
fragments. Id. at 6. On physical exam, Petitioner had an abrasion above her right
eyebrow, a mandible fracture, multiple fractured teeth, and three lacerations on her lip
and chin that required sutures. Id. at 23-24. Ms. Hendricks described having to wait for
nearly 12 hours before her wounds were sutured, “which means they were open for, like,
over 12 hours, which I thought was insane, the most excruciating experience as well, like
one of the worst parts of it all.” Tr. at 11-12. She was discharged from the ED to her home
shortly after midnight, with instructions to follow up with an oral surgeon as her injuries
required surgery. Ex. 2 at 10; Ex. 12 at 62. Ms. Hendricks stated that her mother had
flown to San Francisco from San Diego and arrived at the hospital around 9pm to take
her home. Tr. at 12. Petitioner explained that she was unable to talk and relied on her
mother to make phone calls to find an oral surgeon who was able to perform urgent
surgery to repair her fractures and wounds. Id.
The next day (October 12, 2017), Ms. Hendricks and her mother drove to San Jose
so that Petitioner could be evaluated by oral surgeon John Wesley Emison, M.D., D.D.S.
Tr. at 13; Ex. 5 at 19-21. Upon physical exam, Dr. Emison noted that Ms. Hendricks had
a Band-aid above her right temple area, and at least two lacerations of her chin and lower
lip area, which had been sutured. Ex. 5 at 19. He noted “multiple fractured teeth, facial
swelling and some mild ecchymosis of the face.” Id. Dr. Emison also noted, “[t]he patient’s
mouth is hanging open. The patient is noted to be in moderate distress due to the injury.
The patient has trismus, cannot open her mouth very widely and she was very difficult to
examine, said it hurt to tilt her chair back…” Id. His impressions included, “closed
complete, mildly displaced left subchondral fracture, anterior mandibular symphyseal
fracture opened complete and nondisplaced, multiple subluxated teeth, and multiple
dental injuries.” Id. Dr. Emison explained the surgery he recommended to repair the most
urgent injuries. Id. at 20. Surgery was scheduled for October 14, 2017. Ex. 5 at 22.
On October 14, 2017, Ms. Hendricks underwent surgery – an open reduction with
internal fixation (“ORIF”) under general anesthesia to repair multiple fractures of her
mandible. Ex. 5 at 19-25. Ms. Hendricks explained that it was an approximately three-
hour surgery where “they placed crossbars in my chin to try to stabilize the break and
then placed cross-wires all within my teeth to seal my jaw shut.” Tr. at 13. She also stated
that the sutures she received initially at Zuckerberg hospital “came apart during surgery,
given how poorly the sutures were done, so they had to redo those as well…” Tr. at 13.
When she came out of surgery, Ms. Hendricks explained that she experienced extreme
pain to the side of her head and face. Tr. at 14. Her jaw was wired shut and she was
unable to speak. Id. Ms. Hendricks stated that she experienced “extreme anxiety about
throwing up” and choking due to the nausea caused by her pain medications. Id.
Two days later, on October 16, 2017, Ms. Hendricks returned to Dr. Emison for a
post-operative consultation. Ex. 5 at 28. Petitioner reported that she was “okay” but was
3

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 4 of 15
still experiencing pain. Id. She reported that her mouth and lips were very sore, and her
teeth were sensitive to temperature. Id. Dr. Emison noted that the maxillomandibular
fixation with elastics was stable and Ms. Hendricks appeared to be in proper occlusion.
Id. Petitioner’s facial and oral wounds appeared within normal limits and were stable. Id.
One week later, on October 25, 2017, Ms. Hendricks returned for her second post-
operative visit with Dr. Emison. Ex. 5 at 29. Petitioner expressed concern regarding her
tooth mobility and twitching of the muscles in her face and noted that her mouth felt “dirty.”
Id. On exam, Ms. Hendricks had substantially less swelling, and her facial lacerations
appeared within normal limits. Id. Her sutures were removed from her chin and her teeth
were noted to be stable. Id. The elastics were replaced. Id. Ms. Hendricks was instructed
to return in November. Id.
On November 2, 2017, Dr. Emison examined Ms. Hendricks at her two-and-a-half-
week post-operative visit. Ex. 5 at 30. Petitioner reported that she was no longer taking
opiate pain medication and was only occasionally taking Children’s ibuprofen at night. Id.
She reported that she was improving. Id. On examination, Ms. Hendricks was noted to be
in good occlusion, her teeth were stable, there was no obvious discoloration of her teeth,
and no infection. Id. Her elastics were removed and replaced. Id. Dr. Emison
demonstrated how to remove and replace the elastic bands daily, as well as how to
perform stretching exercises for her jaw and mouth. Id. By November 8, 2017, Ms.
Hendricks was able to open her mouth to approximately two fingers vertical opening. Id.
at 31.
Ms. Hendricks underwent a second surgical procedure on November 17, 2017, for
removal of the maxillomandibular arch bars and for placement of orthodontic appliances.
Ex. 5 at 36-37. Around this same time, temporary composites were placed on three of
Ms. Hendricks’s fractured teeth, while a fourth was extracted and subsequently replaced
with a dental implant. Ex. 12 at 22, 25-26.
Over the next 18 months, Ms. Hendricks required multiple dental procedures,
including four root canals, apical surgery, seven crowns, placement of a metal plate with
six screws in her chin, and two teeth were extracted and replaced with dental implants.
Ex. 10 at 1; Ex. 12 at 35-41, 88-92. She also needed a full set of braces after her jaw had
healed to ensure that her teeth would stay within her gums. Tr. at 16. Ms. Hendricks
attended 15 physical therapy sessions from December 2017 to December 2018 for her
jaw. See generally Exs. 8, 11. She was discharged on December 12, 2018, to a home
exercise program. Ex. 11 at 1-2. Ms. Hendricks received Invisalign braces to properly
align her teeth and was completed with the process in October 2018. Ex. 12 at 91. As of
May 2019, Petitioner’s endodontist noted that one of Ms. Hendricks’ teeth still had a
guarded prognosis, while the others required continued monitoring. Ex. 18 at 1.
4

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 5 of 15
Overall, Ms. Hendrick’s jaw was fully wired shut for five weeks, and then for two
weeks, a small opening was allowed with rubber bands on the cross wires, and two weeks
after that, another small opening was allowed. Tr. at 14-15. Ms. Hendricks stated that she
was still not allowed to chew at that point, five to seven weeks after her initial injury. Tr.
at 15. Ms. Hendricks explained that she had to eat through a syringe with a long red tube
placed in the back of her mouth near her cheek, where liquid food was “push[ed] really
slowly…” Tr. at 15. She explained that all she could eat was essentially “watered-down
soup for multiple … weeks.” Id. After the wires were removed, she still had to remain on
soft foods for nearly six months. Tr. at 17.
In a letter regarding Ms. Hendricks’s future prognosis, Belinda Gregory-Head DDS
MS, stated that given Ms. Hendrick’s youth, she could expect to need additional care for
her damaged teeth over her expected lifetime. Ex. 19 at 1; ECF No. 39 (Declaration of
Belinda Gregory-Head). Dr. Gregory-Head explained that Petitioner’s upper teeth may
grow further from the gum line over the next couple of decades, which could also cause
recession of the gums. Id. This could result in the margin becoming exposed and would
lead Petitioner to being vulnerable to tooth decay. Id. Dr. Gregory-Head stated that Ms.
Hendricks may need to have some, or all of her crowns replaced once or twice in her
lifetime. Id. In addition, because the nerve supply to Petitioner’s teeth was damaged in
the fall, the endodontically treated teeth would need additional care or possible surgery
in the future. Id. Finally, Petitioner’s teeth were repositioned orthodontically after the fall.
Id. Retainers will be necessary for her lifetime so that her teeth may remain properly
positioned. Id. at 2.
In her affidavits, live testimony, and as memorialized in medical records, Ms.
Hendricks has described the mental toll the injury has had on her life. She started seeing
a psychiatrist to deal with her trauma and emotional pain. See generally, Ex. 9; Ex. 23 at
1. She testified regarding the level of pain she had to endure during this time. While her
jaw was wired shut, she had several teeth that had the roots exposed. Tr. at 18. She
explained that every time something cold or hot touched her teeth, even hot or cold air,
she experienced “excruciating pain on the teeth” which resulted in her needing a
composite to seal her teeth to deal with the upcoming treatment she needed. Id.
Ms. Hendricks also testified as to the procedure she underwent to receive a
prosthetic tooth implant, an extensive process took nearly a year to complete. Tr. at 20.
Ms. Hendricks explained that when she fell, her teeth were knocked back into the position
they originally were in before she had braces as a teenager. Id. She initially had to have
orthodontic work completed, before receiving the implant for her damaged tooth. Id. For
the implant process, Ms. Hendricks explained that it started with the removal of the tooth
and then a bone graft placement, which required months of regrowth before the implant
could be placed. Id. at 21. Once it was ensured that the bone was growing, Petitioner
5

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 6 of 15
underwent a surgical procedure to place a large screw/post in her mouth where the
implant would be placed, and then allowed time for the area to heal. Id. Afterwards, a gum
graft was placed to allow gum tissue to grow around the post and then a crown was
placed. Id. Ms. Hendricks explained that the gum graft required a referral to another
specialist, a dentist who specialized in treating gums, to create the gum grafts and place
it all over her front teeth, given the extensive damage to her teeth overall. Id. Obtaining
the gum grafts also required surgery because an area of the mouth had to be lacerated
to obtain gum tissue to create the graft. Id. After the gum graft surgery, Ms. Hendricks
stated that she was unable to eat any solid foods again. Id. In addition, she explained that
it was very painful to talk or move her mouth because the gum grafts had to be surgically
sewn into place. Id. at 22. Ms. Hendricks had multiple gum and bone graft procedures
during the course of her treatment. Id. at 23-24.
Ms. Hendricks discussed the many appointments she attended during her
treatment period, from surgeries, recoveries, appointments for recurring x-rays to monitor
her progress, root canals, crown placements, post-operative appointments, physical
therapy, etc. Tr. at 23-25. She explained that she had significant jaw pain and mobility
issues which required that she attend physical therapy to assist in mobilizing her jaw to
reduce the pain while she spoke, chewed, and moved her mouth. Tr. at 27. She also
explained that because of her jaw injury, she also experienced pain into her neck and
shoulders which caused extreme tension in those areas. Tr. at 27-28. She attended
physical therapy to treat these areas. Id. at 28. Ms. Hendricks testified that she continues
to have neck and shoulder pain to this day. Id.
Ms. Hendricks also explained how her injury affected her employment in the HR
field where she is required to speak for long periods of time. Tr. at 36; Ex. 11 at 33. She
stated that her procedures induced TMJ, which felt like a constant ache in her jaw. Tr. at
36. Because she is an HR professional, she stated that she had to use her jaw to speak
for extended periods of time which constantly induced pain. Id.
Regarding her emotional state during this time, Ms. Hendricks testified that she
experienced extreme anxiety as a result of the fall and the ongoing treatment that was
required. Tr. at 29. She explained that there was not a single person in her treatment
process keeping track of all her procedures or that would advocate for her, so she had to
attempt to learn about all the procedures she was undergoing and to try to coordinate and
communicate, as best she could, about her treatment. Id. at 29-30. For example, Ms.
Hendricks testified that she had to undergo an MRI for an unrelated medical condition,
and she had no information about the type of plate that was in her chin. Tr. at 32. She
had to be removed from the MRI machine until it was determined what material the plate
in her chin was made of. Id.
6

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 7 of 15
Ms. Hendricks stated that she experienced frightening nightmares in the first three
to four months after the fall. Id. More recently, her dreams involved anxiety about all the
procedures she has had to undergo and may need to undergo in the future. Id. at 30. She
states that she currently needs to see the dentist four times a year to monitor her teeth
and gums and to ensure that decay is not occurring. Id.
III. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include an award “[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 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). 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 precise 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) (“Awards 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 in the resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in each 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, a special master may rely on his or her own experience
adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated that special masters would use their
accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual
7

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 8 of 15
claims). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering is not
determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 109
Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
A. Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not contested. 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. Petitioner requested the full amount permitted by the Vaccine Act,
$250,000.00, for her actual/past pain and suffering. Mot. at 2. In reaction, Respondent
stated that the evidence supported a lesser award of $140,000.00. Opp. at 3.
In performing my analysis, I have reviewed the record as a whole, including all
medical records, affidavits, declarations, and all other filed evidence, plus the parties’
briefs, other pleadings, and the hearing testimony. My ultimate determination is based on
the specific circumstances of this case. In addition, in any case in which the parties cannot
agree to a damages component, I have considered my experience adjudicating damages
generally – including the fact that even the most self-limiting and transient of vaccine
injuries from an immediate-impact stance can have “significant treatment consequences.”
Hietpas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1702V, 2021 WL 688620, at *5 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 15, 2021) (recognizing that intussusception can necessitate surgical
intervention).
Because most vaccine injuries involving syncope, presyncope, and vasovagal
responses are resolved informally, there are few reasoned decisions to guide the
outcome in this case. While Petitioner describes her injury and the substantial treatment
that she has had to endure, she does not cite to any specific case to support her proposed
figure of $250,000.00. Respondent cites to two cases: (1) Neff v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 08-906V, 2010 WL 2710646 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2010), and (2)
Hietpas v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1702V, 2021 WL 688620 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Jan. 5, 2021).
The Neff case is a 2010 case that involved a petitioner who suffered vasovagal
syncope that was caused by her receipt of an HPV vaccination. Neff v. Sec'y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 08-0906V, 2010 WL 2710646, at *1 (Fed. Cl. June 15, 2010). That
claimant fell and struck her head which caused brain bleeding, a concussion, and loss of
8

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 9 of 15
sense of smell. Id. She experienced these injuries for more than six months. The case
was resolved by a proffer, and the petitioner was awarded a total of $110,000.00. Id.
In Hietpas, 2021 WL 688629, a petitioner was awarded $140,000.00 for the pain
and suffering she experienced as a result of a post-vaccination syncopal injury. That
petitioner sustained a chin laceration (causing permanent scaring), a jaw fracture, and
underwent ORIF surgery two days later. Although she was noted to be healing well in the
aftermath of her surgery, the Hietpas petitioner reported jaw pain, ear pressure, and
intermittent difficulty chewing in the following months. Approximately seven months after
surgery, her complaints included a clicking and popping sensation when opening her
mouth. And despite attending seven sessions of physical therapy, she was eventually
assessed with right and left TMJ displacement with reduction. Approximately one year
after her injury, she was fitted with an orthopedic cast that had to be worn for 18 hours a
day for a year. Based on this timeline, Petitioner’s course of treatment lasted
approximately two years after her syncopal episode.
While the Hietpas case certainly provides some aid in assessing the proper
measure of damages in this case, there have been two additional syncope cases that
provide additional insight – Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-038V,
2022 WL 1074979, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 4, 2023) and Marcillo v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Services, No. 20-2061V, 2021 WL 4704789, at *1 (Fed. Cl. April 14, 2023).
In Campbell, a petitioner was awarded $190,000.00 in pain and suffering after
becoming dizzy shortly after receiving a flu vaccination and falling down a number of stairs
causing fractures and other injuries to her left tibia and fibula. Campbell, 2022 WL
1074979, at *2. However, due to the petitioner’s poor bone quality, the injuries required
three surgeries to repair. Id. at *3. Each surgery resulted in a brief hospitalization,
prescription pain medication, and limited range of motion and weightbearing. Id. at *5.
The Campbell petitioner’s injuries also caused a significant disruption to her life –
including medically extended absences totaling approximately one year (the petitioner
was a histology specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital). Although the petitioner’s
initial injury was “transient and seemingly minor,” the impact of the event was found to be
uncommonly severe – justifying a fairly high pain and suffering award. Id.
A case that is particular useful to this case is Marcillo, 2021 WL 4704789, where a
petitioner suffered a syncopal episode after being administered a Tdap vaccine. Id. at *
2. The petitioner had lost consciousness and hit his head against a metal table before
falling on to the ground. Id. Ultimately, the Marcillo petitioner underwent four surgical
procedures in a seven-month period – all of which were complex. Id. In addition to
surgery, the petitioner’s jaw was wired shut for approximately one month. Id. During this
time, the petitioner was required to abide by a liquid diet and was forced to “vacuum” his
9

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 10 of 15
mouth to suction out pooling blood and saliva. Id. Braces were placed on petitioner’s
approximately six months later. Id. Once the petitioner’s orthodontic treatment was
completed, he was required to undergo the extraction of his wisdom teeth and removal of
the hardware near his right condyle. Id. The petitioner would then undergo a total joint
replacement once a mold of his jaw was taken. It was found that based on this timeline,
the petitioner’s course of treatment was likely to extend over a total of at least four years.
Id. Considering the severity and duration of the petitioner’s syncopal injury along with the
personal hardships he experienced as a result, he was awarded the maximum
$250,000.00 in actual pain and suffering. Id.
In making my determination on an appropriate award, I have also fully considered
Petitioner’s sworn affidavits and her testimony, in which she described, in detail, the
excruciating pain she experienced throughout her injury as well as the circumstances that
magnified the suffering and emotional distress she experienced as a result of her
syncopal injury. In all, Ms. Hendricks had to endure at least three separate surgeries,
some of which took multiple hours to perform. In explaining one procedure, Ms. Hendricks
recounted that bone and gum grafts had to be removed from her mouth, grown separately
(which could take several months) and then placed in her mouth. Tr. at 21. She explained
that at some points during her treatment, the nerves and roots of her teeth were exposed,
causing “excruciating pain” on her teeth. Tr. at 18. Petitioner also underwent four root
canals, seven crowns, the placement of a metal plate with six screws in her chin, two
tooth extractions, which were eventually replaced with dental implants. Tr. at 16. Ms.
Hendricks had her mouth fully wired shut for five weeks, and partially wired shut for at
least another two weeks. Tr. at 15. During this time, she was required to eat her food
through a syringe. Id. After the wires were removed from her mouth, she was still required
to eat soft foods for at least six months. Tr. at 17. Ms. Hendricks attended at least 15
physical therapy appointments to assist in mobilizing her jaw to reduce pain while she
spoke, chewed, and moved her mouth. Tr. at 27-28. Because of her jaw injury, she also
attended physical therapy to address the neck and shoulder pain she experienced as her
jaw caused tension into these areas. Id.
Ms. Hendricks credibly recounted her feelings of fear and anxiety as a result of all
her procedures and ongoing treatment. Tr. at 29. She explained how she had to keep
track of all her procedures in order to coordinate and communicate between the different
specialists, because there was no single point of contact for all her physicians and medical
providers. Tr. at 29-30. Ms. Hendricks described the frightening nightmares she
experienced in the first few months after her fall and her anxiety about her future
prognosis and procedures. Tr. at 32. And the record demonstrates that Ms. Hendricks will
need ongoing dental care, including monitoring of her dental implants, bone and gum
regrowth, as well as braces and retainers.
10

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 11 of 15
Given all of the foregoing, this case reflects circumstances in which a full award of
pain and suffering at the top of the “cap” for that damages component is fair and
reasonable. While the injury at issue was not life-threatening, and may not be on all fours
with the kind of devastating neurologic harm that some vaccine injuries can be shown to
produce, the degree of intrusive medical care required to ameliorate the Petitioner’s
health was notably high – along with the personal impacts of that treatment.
Accordingly, after considering the severity and duration of Petitioner’s syncopal
injury along with the personal hardships she has experienced as a result, and considering
the arguments presented by both parties at the hearing, a review of the relevant caselaw
and the written record, I find that $250,000.00 in total compensation for actual pain and
suffering is reasonable in this case.
a. Award for Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Petitioner also requests $81,510.43 in past unreimbursable expenses. Mot. at 2.
Respondent argues that the medical records only document $36,102.82, in past medical
expenses. Opp. at 6. After carefully reviewing the documentation submitted by Petitioner
and verifying the payments that were actually incurred, I award Ms. Hendricks $78,661.74
in past unreimburseable expenses.4 See Appendix A.
b. Award for Future Medical Care
In her brief, Petitioner requests $39,000.00 for her future medical care. Mot. at 2.
Respondent argues that $7,000.00, is reasonable and appropriate for Petitioner’s future
medical care, noting that Petitioner did not make any offset for insurance in her
calculation. Opp. at 10.
Total recoverable compensation for an established vaccine injury is offset by
amounts paid or expected to be paid under an insurance policy and certain State or
Federal programs. Section 15(g); Hulon v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1985V,
2022 WL 2069141, at *1 (Fed. Cl. May 3, 2022). Thus, the Vaccine Act always and by its
own terms functions as a secondary payer to a petitioner's health care insurance – the
“payor of last resort.” Indeed, the Act prohibits any “policy of health insurance” from
“mak[ing] payment of benefits under the policy secondary to the payment of
compensation under the Program,” and also prohibits an entity that “provides health
services on a prepaid basis or provides health benefits” from “mak[ing] the provision of
health services or health benefits secondary to the payment of compensation under the
Program.” Section 15(h) (emphasis added). Respondent’s proposed award of $7,000.00
4 Appendix A contains an excel spreadsheet identifying the expense/invoice and location of the
correspondent payments by Petitioner.
11

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 12 of 15
is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.5 Therefore, Petitioner is awarded
this amount without adjustment.
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $335,661.74, (representing $250,000.00 for Petitioner’s
actual pain and suffering, $78,661.74, for past unreimbursable expenses, and
$7,000.00 future medical care) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. These amounts
represent 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
5 This sum was discounted to net present value and takes into consideration the treatment Petitioner is
likely to need, based on the letter from Petitioner’s prosthodontist, Belinda Gregory-Head, D.D.S., M.S. (Ex.
19), with an offset for insurance coverage (e.g., Ex. 53 at 10-11, Petitioner’s Cigna dental policy: 50% paid
for major restorative work after $1,500 deductible).
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.
12

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 13 of 15
Appendix A - Hendricks 19-1061v
Unreimburseable Expenses
Missing the
Medical Charges/Requested Corresponding corresponding Confirmed ECF Page Duplicate
Reimbursement on Ex. 2 at pg. 546 charge date invoice Invoices Located Check No/CC ECF No. No. Page No.
CVS Los Gatos 11/20/2017 $ 23.28 43‐2
CVS Los Gatos 11/20/2017 $ 15.89 43‐2
CVS Poway 11/20/2017 $ 32.21 43‐2
CVS Los Gatos 11/20/2017 $ 59.86 43‐2
CVS Poway 11/20/2017 $ 22.07 43‐2
Walgreens San Francisco 11/1/2017 $ 82.13 43‐2
Dr. John Emison DDS 10/12/2017 $ 7,625.00 Check 43‐2 120 121
" 11/17/2017 $ 700.00 Credit Card 43‐2 121 723
" 3/6/2018 $ 3,180.00 unknown 43‐2 79
CEP America 11/11/2017 $ 387.00 Credit Card 43‐2 577
" 11/17/2017 $ 1,210.00 Credit Card 43‐2 122
King Ambulance 10/11/2017 $ 411.42 Check No. 5748 43‐2 77
Dr. Dennis McCalley, DDS 12/7/2017 $ 240.00 Check 43‐2 140
Dr. Rodney Lee, Orthodontist 12/13/2017 $ 2,280.00 Check No. 5752 43‐2 156
" 3/7/2018 $ 4,066.00 Check No. 5785 43‐2 156
Dr. Rebecca Boardman 12/9/2017 $ 230.00 Check 43‐2 424
" 1/7/2018 $ 81.00 Check 43‐2 424
" 2/5/2018 $ 152.60 Check 43‐2 424 784
Dr. Colleen Hoblit 12/14/2017 $ 1 80.00 Check No. 5756 43‐2 143
Bernardo Dermatology 4/19/2019 $ 24.46 Check No. 5884 43‐2 573
SFGH Medical Group 10/26/2017 $ 187.50 Credit Card 43‐2 789
Harriet Wolfe, MD 1/2/2018 $ 1,650.00 Check No. 5763 43‐2 624
" 1/2/2018 $ 300.00 Check No. 5764 43‐2 622
" 2/22/2018 $ 825.00 Check No. 5783 43‐2 627
" 2/28/2018 $ 5 50.00 Check No. 5789 43‐2 629
" 11/13/2018 $ 800.00 Check No. 5852 43‐2 618 619
" 3/28/2018 $ 1,100.00 Checks 5794 & 5807 43‐2 631
" 4/26/2018 $ 550.00 Check No. 5808 43‐2 886
" 5/13/2019 $ 800.00 Check No. 5872 43‐2 620
" 7/9/2019 $ 600.00 Check No. 5883 43‐2 621
Dr. Pasquinelli $ 2,820.00 Credit Card 43‐2 156 415
1

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 14 of 15
Appendix A - Hendricks 19-1061v
Unreimburseable Expenses
" $ 3,196.00 Check 43‐2 414
" $ 586.00 Credit Card 43‐2 418
" $ 1,832.00 Credit Card 43‐2 415
" $ 282.00
San Francisco General Hospital $ 3,964.36 Check No. 5762 43‐2 820
"Molly reim for Dr bills" $ 700.00 unknown 43‐2 120
Jane Quach, PT 1/17/2018 $ 175.00 Credit Card 43‐2 696
" 1/24/2018 $ 175.00 Credit Card 43‐2 697
" 2/15/2018 $ 175.00 Check 43‐3 698
" 2/9/2018 $ 175.00 Credit Card 43‐2 699 710
" 2/23/2018 $ 175.00 Check 43‐2 700
" 8/13/2018 $ 175.00 Check 43‐2 701
" 7/24/2018 $ 175.00 Check 43‐2 702
" 7/11/2018 $ 175.00 Check 43‐2 703
" 12/7/2017 $ 175.00 Credit Card 43‐2 705
" 1/31/2018 $ 175.00 Credit Card 43‐2 707
Gentle Dental X‐Ray 3/20/2018 $ 360.00 Check 43‐2 763
Mission Bay Medical Group 3/14/2018 $ 385.00 Check No. 5790 43‐2 747
" 5/19/2018 $ 100.65 Check No. 5806 43‐2 747
" 5/19/2018 $ 94.90 Check No. 5805 43‐2 747
" 8/13/2018 $ 328.00 Check No. 5822 43‐2 747
" 11/8/2018 $ 576.50 Check No. 5841 43‐2 748
" 5/19/2019 $ 382.90 Check No. 5871 43‐2 748
" 11/6/2019 $ 399.25 Check No. 5902 43‐2 748
" 11/19/2019 $ 64.30 Check No. 5907 43‐2 749
" 12/17/2019 $ 2 9.00 Check No. 5911 43‐2 749
" 4/1/2020 $ 355.85 Check No. 5920 43‐2 749
" 8/6/2020 $ 102.40 unknown 43‐2 749
Dr. Belinda Gregoryhead 4/5/2018 $ 105.00 Check 43‐2 443
" 7/30/2018 $ 261.00 Check 43‐2 443
" 8/13/2018 $ 1,500.00 Credit Card 43‐2 443 557
" 9/18/2018 $ 350.00 Credit Card 43‐2 443
" 12/11/2018 $ 261.00 Check 43‐2 443
" 4/30/2019 $ 16,600.00 Credit Card 43‐2 558
2

Case 1:19-vv-01061-UNJ Document 58 Filed 09/09/25 Page 15 of 15
Appendix A - Hendricks 19-1061v
Unreimburseable Expenses
" 10/16/2019 $ 174.00 Check 43‐2 560
DeSchamps Braly plastic surgery 1/24/2018 $ 300.00 unknown 43‐2 586
" 3/26/2018 $ 271.25 unknown 43‐2 586
Atlas Massage 8/12/2018 $ 375.00 Credit Card 43‐2 545
" 10/29/2018 $ 375.00 Credit Card 43‐2 545
" $ 85.00 43‐2
" $ 255.00 43‐2
" $ 425.00 43‐2
Bay Area Anesthesia Group 12/11/2018 $ 1,500.00 Credit Card 43‐2 551
LabCorp 10/13/2018 $ 20.87 Check No. 5840 43‐2 741
" $ 5.48 43‐2
UCSF Med Group 9/26/2018 $ 39.20 Credit Card 43‐2 810
" 11/25/2018 $ 115.00 Credit Card 43‐2 806
" $ 647.28 Credit Card 43‐2
" $ 140.37 Credit Card 43‐2
" 10/26/2017 $ 187.50 Credit Card 43‐2 789
Endodontic Arts 3/29/2018 $ 1,825.00 Credit Card 43‐2 256
" 4/3/2018 $ 3,323.00 Credit Card 43‐2 256
" 12/11/2018 $ 2,529.40 Credit Card 43‐2 256
Simon Medical 7/12/2019 $ 191.16 Credit Card 43‐2 794
Sutter Health 8/28/2019 $ 116.27 unknown 43‐2 800
Mollie Tobias Therapy 10/24/2019 $ 1,950.00 Credit Card 43‐2 752
Genova Diagnotstic 6/22/2018 $ 135.00 Credit Card 43‐2 616
Today Urgent Care $ 46.73 43‐2
Postive Edge $ 50.00 43‐2
Total $ 7 8,661.74
3