VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01495
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01495
Petitioner: Michelle McNabb
Filed: 2019-09-27
Decided: 2022-07-01
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-11-14
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 129168

AI-assisted case summary:
Michelle McNabb filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on September 27, 2019, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on November 14, 2017. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that her condition was consistent with SIRVA and that she suffered residual effects for more than six months. The case proceeded to a damages determination. Ms. McNabb's injury began approximately two weeks after vaccination, with pain and limited range of motion in her left shoulder. Despite medical treatment, including physical therapy and medication, her condition worsened, leading to arthroscopic surgery approximately six months post-vaccination for adhesive capsulitis and glenohumeral synovitis. Following surgery, she underwent extensive physical therapy and reported feeling 'nearly normal' about sixteen months after vaccination. The court awarded Ms. McNabb $129,168.54, comprising $125,000.00 for pain and suffering, $2,364.45 for past medical expenses, and $1,804.09 for past lost wages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01495-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-07-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/21/2021) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01495-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1495V
UNPUBLISHED
MICHELLE MCNABB, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 21, 2021
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)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 27, 2019, Michelle McNabb filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on
November 14, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 18, 2021, 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 “has determined that [P]etitioner’s medical course is consistent
with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as defined by the
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-01495-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 2
Vaccine Injury Table”. Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner suffered the
residual effects of her condition for more than six months”. Id. at 5.
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-01495-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-07-01
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/01/2022) regarding 48 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01495-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/01/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1495V
UNPUBLISHED
MICHELLE MCNABB, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 1, 2022
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)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 27, 2019, Michelle McNabb 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”) vaccination that was
administered on November 14, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters, and although entitlement was
conceded, the parties could not resolve damages, leaving that determination to me.
For the reasons set forth below, and pursuant to my oral ruling on May 20, 20223
(which is fully adopted herein), I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages in
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 See Minute Entry dated June 1, 2022. The transcript of the hearing, which was not yet filed as of the date
of this Decision, is hereby incorporated into this Damages Decision by reference.

Case 1:19-vv-01495-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 7
the amount of $129,168.54, consisting of $125,000.00 for actual pain and suffering,
$2,364.45 for unreimbursable past medical expenses, and $1,804.09 for past lost
wages.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Almost two years after the case was filed, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report
in June 2021 conceding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation. Rule 4(c) Report
ECF No. 32. In view of Respondent’s position, a ruling on entitlement was entered. ECF
No. 33. Thereafter, the parties attempted to informally resolve damages but reached an
impasse on an appropriate award. ECF No. 38. I ultimately informed the parties that I
would resolve their dispute via a “Motions Day” hearing, which was held on May 20,
2022.4
Petitioner offered her damages brief on January 3, 2022, requesting that I award
$135,000.00 for past pain and suffering. Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages (“Pet.
Brief”) at 1. ECF No. 42. On February 1, 2022, Respondent filed a damages brief
proposing the lesser award of no more than $75,000.00. Respondent’s Brief on Damages
(“Res. Brief”) at 1. ECF No. 43. The parties otherwise agree that $2,364.45 in
compensation for Petitioner’s past medical expenses, and $1,804.09 for Petitioner’s past
lost wages, should be part of the final award. There are no other damages components
in contention beyond actual pain and suffering. ECF No. 47.
II. Legal Standard
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I fully
adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections II and III of Berge v. Sec’y
Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1474V, 2021 WL 4144999, at *1-3. (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 17, 2021).
In sum, compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or
actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related
injury, an award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). The petitioner bears the
burden of proof with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 18, 1996). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and
4 See Hearing Order filed April 27, 2022 (Non-PDF).
2

Case 1:19-vv-01495-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/01/22 Page 3 of 7
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering. 5
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 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 affidavit filed and all assertions made by the parties in written
documents and at the expedited hearing held on May 20, 2022. 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:
• Petitioner received a flu shot in her left deltoid on November 14, 2017. Ex. 1 at 75.
• On November 27, 2017 (13 days post-vaccination), Petitioner presented to Kanika
White, APRN at the St. Francis Columbus Clinic with pain in her left arm that began
two weeks prior. Ex. 1 at 82-84. Although Petitioner’s exam revealed “moderate
tenderness to palpation,” she was determined to have normal range of motion with
no pain noted on movement. Id. at 84. She was diagnosed with left deltoid tendinitis
and her treatment plan included Prednisone. Id.
• Petitioner presented to Dr. Anthony Miller at St. Francis Columbus Clinic on
December 5, 2017 for left arm pain. Ex. 1 at 90-93. An x-ray was performed, and
its results were normal. Id. at 94. Petitioner was found to have moderate
tenderness to palpation over the left deltoid region, left shoulder crepitus, and mild
left-side restricted range of motion with pain. Id. at 92. Petitioner was prescribed
Mobic and Gabapentin. Id. at 93.
• Petitioner presented to Dr. Miller for a follow-up appointment on December 20,
2017. Ex. 1 at 95-99. She reported that her pain worsened, describing it as “sharp”
5 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (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)).
3

Case 1:19-vv-01495-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/01/22 Page 4 of 7
and “shooting down her left arm.” Id. at 95. A left shoulder MRI was ordered, and
Petitioner was prescribed a Lidoderm patch. Id. at 97.
• Petitioner underwent the MRI on December 26, 2017. The findings revealed (a)
mild rotator cuff tendinopathy, more moderate of the infraspinatus tendon with
bursal surface partial tear; (2) mild subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis; and (3) a small
mid anterior labral tear. Ex. 1 at 100.
• In addition to undergoing an x-ray, on December 28, 2017, Petitioner presented to
Dr. George McCluskey at St. Francis Orthopaedic Institute concerning her left
shoulder. Ex. 2 at 22-24, 27. In addition to rating her shoulder pain as a seven on
a ten-point scale, Petitioner exhibited limited range of motion with tightness at the
extremes. Id. at 22-23. Dr. McClusky’s impression was deltoid myositis and neuritis
secondary to the flu shot. After noting that Petitioner “tried taking Mobic . . . [and]
she has taken gabapentin, which has not helped,” Dr. McCluskey recommended
a six-day Prednisone taper and physical therapy. Id. at 22, 24.
• Petitioner underwent an initial physical therapy evaluation on January 5, 2018. Ex.
6 at 40-43. She rated her pain as an eight on a ten-point scale, noting that this
symptom disrupted her sleep. Id. at 40.
• Petitioner returned to Dr. McCluskey for a follow-up visit on February 7, 2018. Ex.
2 at 21. On exam, Petitioner exhibited limited range of motion and was “tender
over the deltoid.” Id. Dr. McClusky’s impression was noted to include deltoid
myositis. Id.
• During Petitioner’s February 21, 2018 appointment with Dr. Miller, it was noted that
although physical therapy had initially helped, “when she stopped for [two] weeks
. . . pain and burning came back.” Ex. 1 at 104. Petitioner’s exam revealed mild
tenderness to palpation, normal range of motion and no pain with joint motion. Id.
at 106.
• Between January 5 and March 2, 2018, Petitioner attended 15 sessions of physical
therapy. Ex. 6 at 10-43. During her March 2, 2018 session, Petitioner rated her
pain as a four on a ten-point scale. Id. at 10.
• Petitioner attended a follow-up appointment at the St. Francis Orthopaedic Institute
on March 29, 2018 (over four months after vaccination). Ex. 2 at 19-20. Petitioner
rated her pain as a six on a ten-point scale and reported a continuation of shoulder
limitations and nightly pain. Id. at 19. The medical note indicates that despite an
extensive amount of physical therapy, “[Petitioner] continues to have a very painful
4

Case 1:19-vv-01495-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/01/22 Page 5 of 7
shoulder [and] has actually gotten worse. As far as her motion is concerned, she
lost a lot of motion compared to her last visit just simply [six] weeks ago. She is
very stiff on exam today, the stiffest I believe her shoulder has been since we have
been seeing her.” Id.
• Petitioner presented to Dr. McCluskey on April 26, 2018. Ex. 2 at 17-18. In his
medical note, Dr. McCluskey revealed that “the main thrust of our discussion was
that she was so stiff and inflamed . . . that I feel like she is probably at the point of
requiring arthroscopic synovectomy with debridement of the joint, capsular
release, as opposed to trying weeks and weeks of more physical therapy . . . the
pain is really interfering with her quality of life and her every day activities now.” Id.
at 17.
• On May 8, 2018 (approximately six months post vaccination), Petitioner underwent
arthroscopic glenohumeral synovectomy surgery on her left shoulder. Ex. 2 at 25-
26. Petitioner’s post-operative diagnoses were adhesive capsulitis and
glenohumeral synovitis with capsular contracture. Id. at 25.
• Petitioner presented to St. Francis Orthopaedic Institute on May 10, 2018 for a
post-operative follow up. Ex. 2 at 16. She rated her pain as a three on a ten-point
pain scale. Id. The medical note documenting this visit indicate that Petitioner
would begin an “aggressive stretching program.” Id.
• Also on May 10, 2018, Petitioner underwent an initial post-operative physical
therapy evaluation. Ex. 5 at 134-136. Petitioner rated her pain as a five on a ten-
point scale. Id. at 134. In his assessment, the physical therapist noted that
Petitioner “is at high risk for recurrent stiffness due to severity of pre-op stiffness,
surgical findings, and thyroid disorder which increases stiffness risk. Because of
these factors, [Petitioner] will likely require more frequent therapy visits and a
longer duration of visits than typical for this surgical problem.” Id. at 136.
• Petitioner presented to Dr. McClusky for a follow-up visit on June 22, 2018. Ex. 2
at 15. She rated her pain as a three on a ten-point pain scale and complained of a
“little soreness” and was determined to have terminal stiffness and a “little
tenderness over the deltoid insertion.” Id. Petitioner was instructed to return in two
months. Id.
• Petitioner followed up with Dr. McCluskey on August 24, 2018 (over nine months
post-vaccination). Ex. 2 at 14. Although Petitioner’s range of motion was
determined to be “excellent,” she reported that she continued to experience a great
deal of pain in her deltoid region, rating it as a six on a ten-point scale. Id.
5

Case 1:19-vv-01495-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/01/22 Page 6 of 7
• Petitioner was discharged from physical therapy on March 7, 2019 after attending
43 post-operative treatment sessions. Ex. 5 at 8-10. The discharge summary
indicates that Petitioner rated her pain as a one on a ten-point scale and reported
that she was “nearly normal.” Id. at 8-9. Petitioner further noted that she could do
most anything she wanted with only a “mild occasional twinge of pain.” Id. at 9.
The case record overall establishes that Petitioner experienced a moderately
severe shoulder injury which was serious enough for her to seek medical care only
thirteen days post-vaccination. Despite Petitioner’s immediate vigilance in obtaining
treatment for her injury, (which included eight medical visits, fifteen sessions of physical
therapy, and an MRI), she was compelled to undergo arthroscopic surgery approximately
six months after her November 14, 2017 flu shot. Following this procedure, Petitioner’s
pain ranged between a three and six on a ten-point scale. Although Respondent argues
that Petitioner’s condition had improved significantly by May/June 2018, Petitioner began
a second round of physical therapy on May 10, 2018, ultimately attending another 43
sessions post-surgery. It was only on March 17, 2019 (approximately sixteen months
post-vaccination) that Petitioner reported feeling “nearly normal.” Ex. 5 at 8-9.
Based on all of the above, Petitioner has demonstrated entitlement to an award for
pain and suffering exceeding what has been recommended by Respondent. And
Respondent did not offer good comparables involving facts consistent with this record.
Notably, with the exception of Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0279,
2021 WL 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2021), the cases cited in Respondent’s
brief did not involve petitioners who underwent surgical repair of their injuries. Generally,
surgery is required in more severe SIRVA cases, and I have in prior matters noted that
the need for surgery justifies a higher-than-average pain and suffering award (often
exceeding $100,000.00 – although there is no bright-line “rule” requiring an award of this
magnitude simply because SIRVA treatment involved surgery).
The above-described course is most similar to the petitioner in Rafferty v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21,
2020)(awarding $127,500.00 for past pain and suffering to petitioner who was diagnosed
with a partial tendon tear, mild tendinosis, and mild osteoarthritis, underwent a total of 54
sessions of physical therapy, underwent arthroscopic surgery, and who recovered well
despite having some residual aching scar tissue). Another good comparable case is
Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0745V, 2021 WL 2652688 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. May 28, 2021)(awarding $125,000 for past pain and suffering where petitioner
received one cortisone injection, reported moderate to severe levels of pain, and was
unable to work for one month after receiving the vaccine). I therefore find that a damages
award consistent with the results in these two cases is most warranted.
6

Case 1:19-vv-01495-UNJ Document 54 Filed 07/01/22 Page 7 of 7
IV. Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $129,168.54, (representing $125,000.00 for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering, $2,364.45 for unreimbursable past medical expenses, and $1,804.09
for past lost wages) 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.
7