VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01529
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01529
Petitioner: Maricella Garcia
Filed: 2019-10-02
Decided: 2026-01-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-11-02
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 345581.42

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 2, 2019, Maricella Garcia filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on November 2, 2018 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.

Respondent conceded entitlement, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found her entitled to compensation on March 15, 2021. Damages remained contested. The record described a significant SIRVA course with severe pain and moderate range-of-motion limitations for at least two years, treatment with physical therapy, arthroscopic surgery in May 2019 that did not bring full relief, and later treatment by Dr. Bodor. The parties' experts disputed how much of her ongoing pain was vaccine-related because the record also included a SLAP tear, biceps tendonitis, rheumatoid arthritis, Raynaud's-associated hand pain, and complex regional pain syndrome.

Chief Special Master Corcoran found Dr. Bodor persuasive on the vaccine-related adhesive capsulitis/SIRVA and surgical sequelae, while recognizing unrelated conditions also contributed to symptoms. He awarded $190,000.00 for past pain and suffering. A later proffer added $9,750.42 in unreimbursed expenses and $145,831.00 in lost wages. On January 8, 2026, Ms. Garcia received a total lump sum of $345,581.42.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine November 2, 2018 causing Table SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated. ENTITLEMENT CONCEDED; COMPENSATED. Damages litigated. Key facts: severe pain, moderate ROM limits for at least two years, PT, May 2019 arthroscopic surgery, Dr. Bodor opinion linking adhesive capsulitis/SIRVA and CRPS/surgical sequelae; respondent pointed to SLAP tear, biceps tendonitis, rheumatoid arthritis, Raynaud's, and CRPS. Award $190,000 pain/suffering + $9,750.42 expenses + $145,831 lost wages = $345,581.42. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition October 2, 2019; final damages January 8, 2026.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01529-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-04-15
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/15/2021) regarding 39 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 42 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1529V
UNPUBLISHED
MARICELLA GARCIA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 15, 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)
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 2, 2019, Maricella Garcia 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”) which meets the Table definition for SIRVA related to the
influenza vaccine she received on November 2, 2018. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 15. She further
alleged that she received the vaccine in the United States, that she suffered the residual
effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party
has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA, alleged as vaccine
caused. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 16, 19-20. 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 42 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 2
On March 15, 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 concluded that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set
forth in Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(QAI).” Id. at 9.
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-01529-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-21
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/21/2025) regarding 81 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 1 of 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1529V
MARICELLA GARCIA,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: March 21, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
PARTIAL RULING ON DAMAGES1
On October 2, 2019, Maricella Garcia 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) which meets the Table definition for SIRVA related to the
influenza vaccine she received on November 2, 2018. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 15. Respondent
conceded entitlement, but the parties were unable to resolve damages on their own,3 so
I ordered briefing on the matter.
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018).
3 Approximately 18-months after I determined Petitioner was entitled to compensation, the parties informed
me that they had reached an impasse in their damages discussions and requested that I set a briefing
schedule. Status Report, filed Sept. 9, 2022, ECF No. 58. Prior to this request, I had approved the retention
of an economist and life care planners. Orders, issued Jan. 15 and Oct. 22, 2021, ECF Nos. 34, 47. While

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 2 of 13
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $190,000.00 for past pain and suffering. The remaining
damages categories to be decided require additional input from the parties before they
can be resolved.
I. 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 award 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). The petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 my
the parties were finalizing their briefs, I approved the retention of orthopedic experts to opine on the extent
of Petitioner’s SIRVA. Order, issued Jan. 27, 2023.
.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 3 of 13
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated 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 & Hum. 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 590. 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 595. 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. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards.
II. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU4
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of January 1, 2025, 4,545 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU
ten years before. Compensation has been awarded in the vast majority of cases (4,397),
with the remaining 148 cases dismissed.
2,506 of the compensated SPU SIRVA cases were the result of a ruling that the
petitioner was entitled to compensation (as opposed to an informal settlement), and
therefore reflect full compensation.5 In only 270 of these cases, however, was the amount
4 All figures included in this decision are derived from a review of the decisions awarding compensation
within the SPU. All decisions reviewed are, or will be, available publicly. All figures and calculations cited
are approximate.
5 The remaining 1,891 compensated SIRVA cases were resolved via stipulated agreement of the parties
without a prior ruling on entitlement. These agreements are often described as “litigative risk” settlements,
and thus represent a reduced percentage of the compensation which otherwise would be awarded.
Because multiple competing factors may cause the parties to settle a case (with some having little to do
with the merits of an underlying claim), these awards from settled cases do not constitute a reliable gauge
of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded in other SPU SIRVA cases.
3

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 4 of 13
of damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision.6 As I have previously
stated, the written decisions setting forth such determinations, prepared by neutral judicial
officers (the special masters themselves), provide the most reliable guidance in deciding
what similarly-situated claimants should also receive.7
The data for all categories of damages decisions described above reflect the
expected differences in outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated8
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 270 2,206 30 1,891
Lowest $30,000.00 $5,000.00 $45,000.00 $1,500.00
1st Quartile $67,305.16 $60,000.00 $90,000.00 $32,500.00
Median $89,500.00 $80,000.00 $122,866.42 $50,000.00
3rd Quartile $125,000.00 $107,987.07 $162,000.60 $75,000.00
Largest $1,569,302.82 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 270 SPU SIRVA cases in which damages were the result of a reasoned
decision, compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from
$30,000.00 to $215,000.00, with $87,000.00 as the median amount. Only ten of these
cases involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from
6 The rest of these cases resulting in damages after concession were either reflective of a proffer by
Respondent (2,206 cases) or stipulation (30 cases). Although all proposed amounts denote some form of
agreement reached by the parties, those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than
instances in which Respondent formally acknowledges that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages.
7 Of course, even though all independently-settled damages issues (whether by stipulation/settlement or
proffer) must still be approved by a special master, such determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number of such cases,
these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of awards received overall in
comparable cases.” Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (discussing the difference between cases in which damages are agreed
upon by the parties and cases in which damages are determined by a special master).
8 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
4

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 5 of 13
$250.00 to $1,500.00.9 In one of these cases, the future pain and suffering award was
limited by the statutory pain and suffering cap.10
In cases with lower awards for past pain and suffering, many petitioners commonly
demonstrated only mild to moderate levels of pain throughout their injury course. This
lack of significant pain is often evidenced by a delay in seeking treatment – over six
months in one case. In cases with more significant initial pain, petitioners usually
experienced this greater pain for three months or less. Most petitioners displayed only
mild to moderate limitations in range of motion (“ROM”), and MRI imaging showed
evidence of mild to moderate pathologies such as tendinosis, bursitis, or edema. Many
petitioners suffered from unrelated conditions to which a portion of their pain and suffering
could be attributed. These SIRVAs usually resolved after one to two cortisone injections
and two months or less of physical therapy (“PT”). None required surgery. Except in one
case involving very mild pain levels, the duration of the SIRVA injury ranged from six to
30 months, with most petitioners averaging approximately nine months of pain. Although
some petitioners asserted residual pain, the prognosis in these cases was positive.
Cases with higher awards for past pain and suffering involved petitioners who
suffered more significant levels of pain and SIRVAs of longer duration. Most of these
petitioners subjectively rated their pain within the upper half of a ten-point pain scale and
sought treatment of their SIRVAs more immediately, often within 30 days of vaccination.
All experienced moderate to severe limitations in range of motion. MRI imaging showed
more significant findings, with the majority showing evidence of partial tearing. Surgery or
significant conservative treatment, up to 133 PT sessions - occasionally spanning several
years, and multiple cortisone injections, were required in these cases. In nine cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
A. Briefing
Due to a dispute regarding the extent of Petitioner’s vaccine-related sequelae, the
9 Additionally, a first-year future pain and suffering award of $10,000.00 was made in one case. Dhanoa v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018).
10 Joyce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1882V, 2024 WL 1235409, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 20, 2024) (applying the $250,000.00 statutory cap for actual and future pain and suffering set forth in
Section 15(a)(4) before reducing the future award to net present value as required by Section 15(f)(4)(A));
see Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir.1994) (requiring the
application of the statutory cap before any projected pain and suffering award is reduced to net present
value).
5

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 6 of 13
parties’ proposed compensation differs significantly. Petitioner seeks $1,619,823.98,
comprised of $19,145.14 for past unreimbursed expenses, $145,951.84 for future
unreimbursed expenses, $1,204,727.00 for past and future lost wages, and $250,000.00
for pain and suffering. Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Regarding Damages (“Brief”) at 40, filed Dec. 9, 2022, ECF No. 61. In support of this
damages demand, Petitioner provided an expert report, curriculum vitae (“CV”), and
medical literature from Marko Bodor, M.D., an orthopedist and expert on SIRVA injuries,
who treated Petitioner beginning in late-June 2020, more than 32 months post-
vaccination. Ex. 45, filed May 19, 2023, ECF No. 6911; Exs. 46-49, filed Dec. 9, 2022,
ECF No. 62. Petitioner has also filed expert reports and CVs from her vocational expert
and economist, extensive documentation related to lost wages and expenses, and
documentation related to her application for long-term disability. Exs. 52-72, filed Dec. 9,
2022, ECF No. 63.
The $250,000.00 pain and suffering award Petitioner seeks is comprised of
$209,000.00 for past, and $40,100.00 for future pain and suffering. Brief at 32. Petitioner
arrives at the future amount based upon an award of $1,000.00 per year for her life
expectancy of 40.1 years. Id. at 32 n.2. It does not appear, however, that she has reduced
any of the future amounts she seeks - for pain and suffering, expenses, or lost wages, to
net present value as required by Section 15(f)(4)(A).12
To support a pain and suffering award at the top of the Program “cap,” Petitioner
contrasts her life pre and post-injury. She highlights her prior good health and satisfaction
she obtained as mom to two young boys, and work as a pediatric oncology nurse and
part-time nurse in the anesthesia unit of a spinal outpatient surgery center, versus her
subsequent struggle with chronic pain, right shoulder deficits, anxiety, and depression
that “negatively impacted almost every aspect of her life.” Brief at 33. Emphasizing the
permanent nature of her SIRVA (id. at 34), she insists that her “diverse and ongoing
sequelae is clearly more severe than most, if not all, of the cases decided in SPU over
the last few years” (id. at 35).
11 Although this expert report was initially filed on December 9, 2022, it was later discovered to contain a
scrivener’s error, and a motion to strike the previous expert report was filed on May 19, 2023. ECF No. 68.
The same day, Petitioner also filed the corrected expert report. Ex. 45, ECF No. 69.
12Additionally, the statutory cap of $250,000.00 must be applied prior to adjusting the award for future pain
and suffering to net present value. Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552, 554-55 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); P.H. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-1112V, 2017 WL 3598108, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 28, 2017); see Section 15(a)(4)(statutory limit for actual and projected pain and suffering); Section
15(f)(4)(A) (requirement regarding net present value).
6

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 7 of 13
For comparable decisions, Petitioner points to Lawson, Schoonover, and Hooper13
- cases in which the claimant received between $185,000.00 and $205,000.00 in pain
and suffering. Brief at 36-39. She notes that the Schoonover petitioner was assessed as
having a 40 percent disability and thus, also received a future award of $1,200.00 yearly
for life. Id. at 38 (citing Schoonover, 2020 WL 5351341, at *6-7). Acknowledging that the
Lawson and Schoonover petitioners underwent three and two surgeries, respectively,
Petitioner maintains that her past award should be similar, albeit slightly more, and that
(like the Schoonover petitioner) she is also entitled to a future award given the unusual
degree of her suffering. Id. at 35-38.
Contending that Petitioner’s surgical treatment and post-operative care were not
related to her SIRVA, Respondent counters that his proffered amount - $57,500.00 for
pain and suffering - is appropriate. Respondent’s Brief Regarding Damages (“Opp.”) at 9-
10, filed Dec. 9, 2022, ECF No. 60. He opposes any award for future expenses or lost
wages and states only that compensation for past expenses “may be appropriate but . . .
must be related to the SIRVA injury.” Id. at 2 n.2. For comparable cases, he cites Ramos,
Rayborn, and Norton14 – involving pain and suffering awards ranging from $40,000.00 to
$55,000.00. Opp. at 10 n.4.
Although Respondent utilized a vocational expert and economist during the parties’
informal discussions, he did not file any reports from these experts. See, e.g., Status
Report, filed May 25, 2022, ECF No. 52 (discussing the joint evaluation performed by the
parties’ vocational experts in February 2022). On May 31, 2023, Respondent provided an
expert report regarding Petitioner’s SIRVA-related sequelae and CV from Brian Feeley,
M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and professor at the University of California, San Francesco,
School of Medicine. Exs. A-B, ECF No. 73.
In her reply brief, Petitioner criticizes multiple aspects of Dr. Feeley’s expert report
and reiterates her damages request. Petitioner’s Reply Memorandum Regarding
Damages (“Reply”), filed July 24, 2023, ECF No. 78. She also filed a rebuttal expert report
from Dr. Bodor, accompanied by additional medical literature. Exs. 77-80, ECF Nos. 78-
13 Lawson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-08882V, 2021 WL 688560 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
5, 2021) (awarding $205,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Schoonover v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 16-1324V, 2020 WL 5351341 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 5, 2020) (awarding $200,000.00 for past pain
and suffering and $1,200.00 per year for life for future pain and suffering); Hooper v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 17-0012V, 2019 WL 1561519 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019) (awarding $185,000.00
for past pain and suffering).
14 Ramos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1005V, 2021 WL 688576 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4,
2021) (awarding $40,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Rayborn v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
18-0226V, 2020 WL 5522948 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 14, 2020) (awarding $55,000.00 for actual pain
and suffering); Norton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1432V, 2021 WL 4805231 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 14, 2021) (awarding $55,000.00 for actual pain and suffering).
7

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 8 of 13
1 to 78-4. Noting multiple areas of disagreement between Drs. Feeley and Bodor, she
insists that Dr. Feeley’s assertions that her adhesive capsulitis, surgery, and chronic
regional pain syndrome (“CRPS”) were not SIRVA-related are not well-supported and
contrary to the findings of her treating orthopedist Dr. Bodor. Reply at 4-9. Petitioner also
maintains that Dr. Feeley’s report contains several internal inconsistencies, such as his
claim that Petitioner’s SIRVA-related symptoms did not extend beyond six months but
were also improved by treatment administered by Dr. Bodor more than 19-months post-
vaccination. Id. at 4.
B. Expert Reports
The experts agree upon the facts and circumstances in this case, but disagree as
to the causes of the symptoms Petitioner experienced. Ex. A. at 6. They set forth
analogous recitations of Petitioner’s medical history. Ex. 45 at 1-4; Ex. A at 2-3.
Petitioner, a forty-one-year-old nurse and mother of two boys, received the flu
vaccine in her right deltoid on November 2, 2018. When seen for right shoulder pain on
November 27, 2018, her PCP diagnosed her with tendonitis, bursitis, and weakness of
the right shoulder and ordered an MRI. Ex. 9 at 3. The MRI revealed a torn posterior
labrum, mild tendinosis of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendons without tear, and
a small amount of fluid at the subacromial-subdeltoid bursa. Ex. 7 at 22.
Petitioner was thereafter assessed by an orthopedist on December 11, 2018, with
bursitis and impingement. Ex. 6 at 6. She began PT in mid-December 2018. Ex. 4 at 9.
Petitioner was diagnosed with a SLAP15 tear in January 2019 (Ex. 6 at 10), but gained
good, albeit temporary, relief from steroid injection administered on January 14 and April
1, 2019. Ex. 6 at 10, 13, 15, 20, 23.
On May 2, 2019, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery consisting of
subacromial decompression and open subpectoral tenodesis. Ex. 6 at 28-29. She made
slow but steady improvement thereafter, during 31 PT sessions through September 2019.
Ex. 21.
Testing performed in September 2019, showed evidence of an autoimmune
condition (Ex. 31 at 11), and Petitioner was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in October
2019 (Ex. 16 at 1). She also underwent a second MRI of her right shoulder and MRI of
her right arm which revealed new findings: a “[c]hronic appearing rupture of the biceps
tendon, retracted distally to the level of the proximal humerus” (Ex. 8 at 12) and “[t]orn
15 A SLAP tear stands for superior labrum anterior-posterior. “SLAP tear surgery is often done to repair torn
cartilage in the inner part of your shoulder joint.” https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21844-
slap-tear-surgery (last visited on Mar. 21, 2025).
8

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 9 of 13
and retracted long head biceps tendon” (id. at 13), respectively.
During an independent medical evaluation performed in October 2019, for her
workers’ compensation claim, Petitioner was assessed as having a twelve percent upper
extremity impairment, converted to a seven percent whole person impairment rating. Ex.
27 at 125. Estimating her pain as four, ranging from three to eight, and exhibiting
limitations in ROM, Petitioner stated that her shoulder had improved by 20 percent and
that “her overall capacity [wa]s approximately 10% of her pre-injury status.” Id. at 123.
Petitioner also visited the emergency room in late October 2019, complaining of
“issues in r[igh]t shoulder since surgery in May,” specifically duskiness when her arm was
hanging down and a bulge in her clavicle area beginning two days after her surgery. Ex.
15 at 29 (capitalized in original). During a late November 2019 visit, a treating neurologist
opined that he “strongly suspected that Ms. Garcia has more than one problem,” noting
her clearly orthopedic issue leading to surgery, her positional numbness and discoloration
thereafter which he believed was vascular, and possible denervation in the distribution of
the right axillary nerve and possible Parsonage-Turner syndrome. Ex. 22 at 10.
In early 2020, Petitioner sought treatment from another orthopedist (Ex. 26 at 3-
4), a chiropractor (Ex. 30 at 1-8), and her rheumatologist who noted improvements in her
symptoms with oral steroids (Ex. 29 at 7). She also attended 12 PT sessions in February
through March 2020. Ex. 41.
In June 2020, Petitioner had a telehealth appointment with Dr. Bodor, as well as
another physician at his clinic in California, Dr. Matt Oglesby. Ex. 32 at 5. They
recommended that Petitioner undergo anesthetic blocks to the infraspinatus tendon, likely
the area of greatest tenderness that may be associated with SIRVA, and provided her
with the name of a local physician who could perform the procedure. Id. Instead, Petitioner
traveled to California in early September 2020, so Dr. Bodor could administer an
anesthesia injection at “[t]he infraspinatus insertion, next to two cortical irregularities.” Ex.
37 at 5. Petitioner reported that this injection alleviated her pain, decreasing its intensity
from four to zero. Id. The next day, Dr. Bodor debrided and aspirated the region using a
Tenex surgical technique, a surgical technique using ultrasound imaging that is less
invasive than arthroscopic surgery. Id. at 1. In October 2020, Petitioner attended four
additional PT sessions (Ex. 40 at 17-28), reporting 40% improvement by her third session.
Id. at 26.
During the second half of 2020, Petitioner continued to see her rheumatologist (Ex.
35 at 3; Ex. 42 at 4; Ex. 44 at 12), a hand therapist (Ex. 38 at 1), and neurologist (Ex. 39
at 9). She returned to her rheumatologist in July 2021, complaining of pain in her joints,
right shoulder, and hand, along with difficulties gripping with her right hand. Ex. 44 at 6.
9

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 10 of 13
In his initial expert report, Dr. Bodor opined that “[d]eposition of the vaccine into
the infraspinatus tendon and subsequent autoimmune inflammation was most likely the
source of [Petitioner’s] pain. Ex. 45 at 6. Although he acknowledges “that the SLAP tear
and supraspinatus partial-thickness tear were most likely than not causing her any pain
and would be classified as incidental findings” (id.), Dr. Bodor insists that “the next most
logical step was for Ms. Garcia to undergo arthroscopy with the goal of repairing her SLAP
tear and finding other potential reversible sources for her pain” (id. at 5). He notes that
when Petitioner underwent her surgery, the ultrasonic aspiration and debridement he
performed in September 2020, was not an option as this treatment was first used at his
clinic in August 2019, three months after Petitioner’s surgery. Id. at 6.
Dr. Bodor further links the symptoms Petitioner experienced in her right hand
(duskiness, pain, and weakness) to her arthroscopic surgery. Stating that her positive
reaction to the treatment he provided in September 2020, confirmed that the infraspinatus
tendon insertion was the source of her pain, he attributed the relief Petitioner received
from the oral steroids prescribed by her rheumatologist to the medications effect on the
inflammation from the vaccine injection. Id. at 5-6. Dr. Bodor concluded,
that Ms. Gracia’s residual shoulder, arm, and hand pain and disability stem
from either a) ongoing residual vaccine present in the shoulder capsule,
causing a local auto-immune response and pain in the shoulder and down
the arm or b) the sequelae of surgical debridement of her superior labrum,
supraspinatus and biceps tendons and biceps tenodesis, structures which
very likely were not causing her any pain or dysfunction, or c) a combination
of a) and b).
Id. at 6.
In his expert report, Dr. Feeley attributed Petitioner’s symptoms to adhesive
capsulitis which he maintained could be associated with rheumatoid arthritis. Ex. A at 4.
Criticizing Dr. Bodor’s view that her initial symptoms were not related to rheumatoid
arthritis “since she did not have pain in her other joints,” Dr. Feeley noted that Ms. Garcia
had “several symptoms consistent with an autoimmune disorder, including labs consistent
with rheumatoid arthritis, changes in hand color and strength consistent with rheumatoid
arthritis and Raynaud’s syndrome, and pain in multiple joints.” Id. at 6.
Dr. Feeley also opined that the arthroscopic surgery Petitioner underwent was
SIRVA-related because its purpose was to address the biceps tendonitis and a SLAP
tear, conditions not typical of a SIRVA injury. Id. at 6-7. Although he acknowledged that
“some of Ms. Garcia’s initial symptoms may have been from the vaccine administration,”
10

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 11 of 13
he insisted they “were effectively treated by Dr. Bodor.” Id. at 7. He concluded that
Petitioner’s chronic conditions (SLAP tear, biceps tendonitis, rheumatoid arthritis,
Raynaud’s associated hand pain, and CRPS) are not consistent with SIRVA. Id.
In his rebuttal expert report, Dr. Bodor criticized as inconsistent Dr. Feeley’s
argument that Petitioner experienced SIRVA symptoms for only a few months which were
relieved by the treatment her provided almost two years later. Ex. 77 at 1. He agreed that
Petitioner suffered from adhesive capsulitis, which has sometimes been linked to
conditions such as diabetes, but disagreed that there was any connection between it and
rheumatoid arthritis - noting that Dr. Feeley did not provide the medical literature that he
cited for this preposition. Id. Instead, he opined that “adhesive capsulitis is frequently
associated with SIRVA,” and cited medical literature to support this assertion. Id. at 1-2.
He also agreed that Petitioner developed CRPS as a result of her surgery which he
viewed as vaccine-related. Id. at 2.
Dr. Bodor recognized that Petitioner’s rheumatoid arthritis was not vaccine-related,
stating that “Ms. Garcia had the misfortune of developing both SIRVA and rheumatoid
arthritis within the same two years.” Ex. 77 at 2. He concluded that “more likely than not,
Ms. Garcia’s adhesive capsulitis/SIRVA developed well before the acute onset of her
rheumatoid arthritis and related symptoms.” Id.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Past 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 his
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury. In so doing, I consider the record as a whole, including the filed medical
records, affidavits, and sworn declarations, plus all assertions made by the parties in
written documents. I also 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 ultimate determination on the circumstances of this case.
I find Dr. Bodor’s opinion - linking Petitioner’s adhesive capsulitis, need for surgery,
and later symptoms of CRPS, to the flu vaccine she received - to be persuasive. Dr. Bodor
has provided a reasonable explanation of the potential mechanism in this case, whereby
the erroneous administration of the flu vaccine into the infraspinatus tendon insertion point
was the likely cause of the initial symptoms Petitioner suffered. And his theory is further
supported by the relief Petitioner obtained from the treatment he provided in 2020. Unlike
Dr. Feeley’s assertion that adhesive capsulitis can be linked to rheumatoid arthritis, Dr.
Bodor has provided substantial medical literature supporting different aspects of his
opinion. See e.g., Ex. 78 (describing the type of local inflammation he proposed).
11

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 12 of 13
However, all of Petitioner’s symptoms cannot credibly be linked to the flu vaccine
that she received. Even Dr Bodor acknowledged that Petitioner suffered unrelated and
simultaneous conditions, specifically a SLAP tear and rheumatoid arthritis, which would
account for some of her symptoms. While her SIRVA may have compounded her pain
and suffering connected with those comorbid conditions, it did not cause them, and some
distinctions should be drawn as a result.
Taking these other conditions into account still reveals that Petitioner suffered a
significant SIRVA, accompanied by severe pain levels and moderate limitations in ROM
for at least two years post-vaccination. Rather than obtaining relief from the arthroscopic
surgery she underwent in May 2019 (seven months post-vaccination), Petitioner
experienced an increase in her pain and suffering. She obtained some slow
improvements from multiple PT sessions both prior to and following surgery, but gained
most of her relief from the treatment Dr. Bodor supplied.
For purposes of determining Petitioner’s past pain and suffering award, I find the
Schoonover case to be most instructive. Like Petitioner, the Schoonover petitioner failed
to obtain much relief from the first arthroscopic surgery she underwent and experienced
accompanying symptoms of depression throughout her injury. Schoonover, 2020 WL
5351341, at *4. However, the Schoonover petitioner also gained little relief from a second
arthroscopic surgery and did not experience the complication of an unrelated condition
(rheumatoid arthritis) as Petitioner did. Id. Furthermore, the Schoonover petitioner had a
clear assessment of a 40 percent permanent disability. Id. at *4-5. It is very difficult on the
basis of this record to assess whether Petitioner has any ongoing SIRVA symptoms (as
opposed to those attributed to rheumatoid arthritis and Raynaud’s syndrome) in this case.
Given the above, I find that $190,000.00 is an appropriate award for Petitioner’s
past pain and suffering. However, I cannot at this point decide the other disputed
damages components without additional argument and evidence. Because Respondent
argued that Petitioner’s SIRVA-related symptoms were not extensive, he did not address
the matter of lost wages or unreimbursed expenses. Although I am not inclined to award
any future amounts at this point, I am not precluding such a finding if the record is shown
to support such determinations.
In light of my ruling, the parties should attempt to informally resolve these other
areas of compensation, while simultaneously providing the needed briefing and evidence.
12

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 82 Filed 04/21/25 Page 13 of 13
Conclusion
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for reasons set
forth in this ruling, I find that $190,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.
The parties shall file a joint status report updating me on their efforts to
informally resolve all other requested items of compensation in this case no later
than Thursday, April 24, 2025. In the status report, they should state whether they
believe an informal agreement regarding the remainder of damages in this case
can be reached.
At the same time, Respondent shall continue to finalize and provide his
arguments and supporting evidence related to lost wages, and unreimbursed
expenses Petitioner seeks. And Petitioner should do the same regarding any future
amounts.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
13

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01529-2
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-10
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/08/2026) regarding 94 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 96 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1529V
MARICELLA GARCIA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 8, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 2, 2019, Maricella Garcia 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) which meets the Table definition for SIRVA related to the
influenza vaccine she received on November 2, 2018. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 15. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On March 15, 2021, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 39. After the parties reached an impasse in their
damages discussions, I issued a partial damages ruling on March 21, 2025, finding
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018).

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 96 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 6
Petitioner entitled to $190,000.00 for past pain and suffering. ECF No. 81. I also instructed
the parties to engage in damages discussion, in an attempt to reach an agreement on the
remaining categories of compensation, specifically lost wages and unreimbursed
expenses. Id. at 12-13.
On January 7, 2026, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation
(“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner also should be awarded $155,581.42, representing
$9,750.42 for past unreimbursable expenses and $145,831.00 for past lost wages. Proffer
at 2, ECF No. 93. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the
proffered award. Id. He also stated he “does not waive his right to seek review of the
Court’s Partial Ruling on Damages.” Id. at 2 n.1. Based on the record as a whole, I find
that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer and the Partial Damages
Ruling issued on March 21, 2025, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$345,581.42, representing $190,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $9,750.42 for
actual unreimbursable expenses, and $145,831.00 for actual lost wages, to be paid
through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents 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.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 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.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 96 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
MARICELLA GARCIA,
Petitioner,
Case No. 19-1529V (ECF)
v. CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER
CORCORAN
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Procedural History
On October 2, 2019, Maricella Garcia (“petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”)
vaccination received on November 2, 2018. Petition at 1-2, ¶¶ 2-3.
On March 15, 2021, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, conceding entitlement
in this case because petitioner met the criteria to establish a presumptive Table SIRVA
injury. ECF Doc. No. 38 at 1, 9. On March 15, 2021, the Court issued its Ruling on
Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to compensation. ECF Doc. No. 39.
On March 21, 2025, after the parties were unable to resolve damages and after
briefing, the Court issued a Partial Ruling on Damages. ECF Doc. No. 81. The Court

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 96 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 6
awarded $190,000.00 for pain and suffering and ordered the parties to revisit the other
damages items.1 Id. at 12-13.
II. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded the following:
A. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should
be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $9,750.42. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.
B. Lost Earnings
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred lost earnings related
to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past
lost wages in the amount of $145,831.00. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). Petitioner
agrees.
Aside from the amount already awarded by the Chief Special Master in his March
21, 2025 Partial Ruling on Damages, these amounts represent all elements of
compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner
agrees.
1 Respondent does not waive his right to seek review of the Court’s Partial Ruling on
Damages.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 96 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 6
III. Form of the Award/Recommended Payment
Aside from the amount already awarded by the Chief Special Master in his March
21, 2025 Partial Ruling on Damages, the parties recommend that compensation provided
to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment, as described below, and
request that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the
following:2
A lump sum payment of $155,581.42, to be paid through an ACH deposit to
petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner,
Maricella Garcia.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Proof of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
JONATHAN D. GUYNN
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
GABRIELLE M. FIELDING
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, respondent would oppose any award
for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering, and the
parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief.
3

Case 1:19-vv-01529-UNJ Document 96 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 6
s/ Mark K. Hellie
MARK K. HELLIE
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
T: (202) 616-4208
E: mark.hellie@usdoj.gov
DATED: January 7, 2026
4