VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01876
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01876
Petitioner: Lisa Meirndorf
Filed: 2019-12-11
Decided: 2022-04-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-30
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 215938

AI-assisted case summary:
Lisa Meirndorf filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 11, 2019, alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of her influenza vaccination on October 30, 2017. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded entitlement to compensation. The respondent's medical personnel reviewed the petition and medical records and concluded that Petitioner suffered a right SIRVA, with no other causes identified, and that she met the statutory requirements by experiencing six months of residual effects. A ruling on entitlement was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on April 30, 2021, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. The parties were unable to agree on the amount of damages, leading to a hearing on February 18, 2022. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie of Howie Law, PC, and the respondent was represented by Voris Edward Johnson of the U.S. Department of Justice. In a decision dated March 7, 2022, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Petitioner $200,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $15,938.25 for unreimbursed expenses, totaling $215,938.25. The award considered the severity and duration of her injury, which included extensive treatment over three years, 79 physical therapy sessions, three steroid injections, five laser treatments, two joint injections, two shoulder MRI scans, and two separate arthroscopic surgeries. Petitioner's medical records indicated initial symptoms of constant, worsening right shoulder pain that interfered with her ability to work and drive, with decreased range of motion. Her first surgery was on March 1, 2019, for right shoulder impingement, AC joint arthritis, and subacromial bursitis, but it did not fully resolve the pain. She underwent a second surgery on November 13, 2020, for right shoulder impingement, rotator cuff inflammation, subacromial bursitis, and adhesions. Petitioner also experienced depression due to chronic pain and was unable to engage with her young children. The Special Master considered prior SIRVA cases in determining the award, finding Petitioner's case comparable to others involving two surgical interventions. The award was issued as a check payable to Petitioner.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Lisa Meirndorf, age 36, received an influenza vaccine on October 30, 2017. She alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), which is a condition listed in the Vaccine Injury Table. The Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner suffered a right SIRVA and met the statutory requirements of six months of residual effects. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. The case proceeded to a damages hearing where Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded Petitioner $200,000.00 for pain and suffering and $15,938.25 for unreimbursed expenses, totaling $215,938.25. The award was based on the severity and duration of the injury, including two arthroscopic surgeries and extensive treatment over three years. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie and the Respondent by Voris Edward Johnson. The decision was issued on April 8, 2022.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01876-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-06-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/30/2021) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01876-UNJ Document 38 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1876V
UNPUBLISHED
LISA MEIRNDORF, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 30, 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)
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 11, 2019, Lisa Meirndorf 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 Table Injury – Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of her October 30, 2017
influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 28, 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.
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-01876-UNJ Document 38 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 2
Specifically, Respondent indicates that
[m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs,
Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”), have reviewed the
petition and medical records filed in this case. Based on their review, DICP
concluded that petitioner suffered a Table injury of right SIRVA. DICP did
not identify any other causes for petitioner’s right SIRVA, and based on the
medical records outlined above, petitioner met the statutory requirements
by experiencing six months of residual effects. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i) and (iii).
Id. at 8-9. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands,
compensation is appropriate, as petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Act.” 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-01876-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-04-08
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/07/2022) regarding 52 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01876-UNJ Document 58 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1876V
UNPUBLISHED
LISA MEIRNDORF, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 7, 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)
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 11, 2019, Lisa Meirndorf 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 Table Injury – a Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
received on October 30, 2017. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Although
Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties could not agree on damages, so the
disputed issues were submitted to an SPU Motions Day hearing in February 2022.
1 Because this 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-01876-UNJ Document 58 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 6
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to $200,000.00,
for her actual pain and suffering, plus $15,938.25 representing Petitioner’s unreimbursed
expenses.
I. Procedural Overview
As noted above, the case was initiated in December 2019. On April 28, 2021,
Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report in which he conceded that Petitioner was entitled to
compensation in this case. ECF No. 33. Accordingly, on April 30, 2021, a ruling on
entitlement issued finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA injury. ECF
No. 35.
The parties were subsequently unable to informally resolve the issue of damages,
so a briefing schedule was set on September 10, 2021. ECF No. 43. Petitioner filed her
brief on October 25, 2021, requesting that I award her $200,000.00 in compensation -
representing her past/actual pain and suffering. ECF No. 45. Conversely, in a brief filed
on December 9, 2021, Respondent argued that Petitioner should be awarded only
$175,000.00 for past pain and suffering. ECF No. 46. Petitioner filed a Reply brief on
December 21, 2021. ECF No. 47. The parties have otherwise agreed upon an award of
$15,938.25 representing Petitioner’s unreimbursed expenses, so that amount is not
disputed and will be awarded as well. ECF No. 46 at 1.
In January of this year, I informed the parties that this case was appropriate for an
expedited hearing and ruling via my “Motions Day” practice, at which time I would decide
the disputed damages issues based on all evidence filed to date plus whatever oral
argument they wanted to make. ECF No. 48. The parties agreed, and the hearing took
place on February 18, 2022. Minute Entry dated February 24, 2022.3 I orally ruled on
Petitioner’s damages at that time, and this Decision memorializes my determination.
II. Pain and Suffering
A. Legal Standard and Prior SIRVA Pain and Suffering Awards
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 Winkle v. Sec’y
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0485V, 2022 WL 221643, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
11, 2022).
3 John Howie appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and Jeremy Fugate appeared on behalf of Respondent.
The transcript of the February 18, 2022 Hearing in this case was not filed as of the date of this Decision,
but my oral ruling is incorporated by reference herein.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01876-UNJ Document 58 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 6
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 & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 18, 1996). 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.4
B. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, Ms. Meirndorf’s awareness of the injury is not disputed, leaving only
the severity and duration of that injury to be considered. In determining appropriate
compensation for pain and suffering, I have carefully reviewed and taken into account the
complete record in this case, including, but not limited to: Petitioner’s medical records,
affidavits, filings, and all assertions made by the parties in written documents and at the
expedited hearing held on February 18, 2022. I have also considered prior awards for
pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases, and relied upon my
experience adjudicating these cases. However, my determination is ultimately based
upon the specific circumstances of this case.
I find that $200,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation
for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering. There are several related bases for my decision.
First, the record establishes that Petitioner’s shoulder pain was initially fairly
severe, prompting her to contact her primary care provider nine days after her vaccination
on November 8, 2017, and then again on November 9, 2017. Ex. 3 at 14. Petitioner was
seen by her primary care provider on November 10, 2017. Ex. 3 at 91-95. Petitioner
reported right shoulder pain that was “constant[],” “worsening,” and “interfering with her
ability to work (on the computer) as well as drive due to discomfort.” Ex. 3 at 91. It was
noted that Petitioner had decreased range of motion (“ROM”), and she was
recommended to begin physical therapy as soon as possible. Id. Petitioner was assessed
with an “[a]dverse effect of vaccine” and “[a]cute pain of right shoulder.” Id. Thereafter,
she underwent a significant amount of treatment for her injury for over three years, to
4 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (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)).
3

Case 1:19-vv-01876-UNJ Document 58 Filed 04/08/22 Page 4 of 6
include: 79 physical therapy sessions5, three steroid injections6, five laser treatments7,
two joint injections8, two shoulder MRI scans9, and two separate arthroscopic surgeries.10
Second, Petitioner’s medical records establish that the course of her injury, and
level of treatment it required, was far more severe than usual. Petitioner’s reported pain
levels varied, but were relatively high leading up to her first surgical procedure, further
her pain was persistent enough to cause her to seek out, and receive, a significant amount
of medical treatment as described above. On March 1, 2019, Petitioner underwent her
first arthroscopic surgery under general anesthesia and a scalene block, consisting of 1)
a right shoulder arthroscopic subacromial decompression; 2) a right shoulder arthroscopic
distal clavicle excision; and 3) a right shoulder arthroscopic extensive joint debridement.
Ex. 14 at 3. Her post-operative diagnoses were right shoulder impingement, AC joint
arthritis, and subacromial bursitis. Id.
The surgical procedure did not, however, relieve Petitioner’s shoulder pain, and
she continued to seek out medical intervention as a result. But despite undergoing
extensive additional treatment, including 36 physical therapy appointments (Ex. 16 at 82-
162), and seven acupuncture treatments (Ex. 24 at 13-25) – all subsequent to her March
1, 2019 surgery – Petitioner’s shoulder injury persisted. On November 13, 2020,
Petitioner underwent a second arthroscopic surgery under general anesthesia and a
scalene block – consisting of 1) a right shoulder revision arthroscopic subacromial
5 Petitioner underwent multiple rounds of physical therapy for a total of 79 physical therapy sessions. See,
e.g., Exs. 7, 16, 29. See also, Petitioner’s Brief, Ex. B (ECF No. 45-2).
6 Petitioner received steroid injections on December 22, 2017 (Ex. 11 at 5), March 1, 2018 (Ex. 11 at 19),
and June 21, 2019 (Ex. 17 at 13).
7 Petitioner received two laser treatments in January 2018 (Ex. 11 at 13, 15) and three laser treatments in
November 2020 (Ex. 26 at 2-4).
8 Petitioner received arthrocentesis/joint injections on October 2, 2018, and November 2, 2018. Ex. 9 at 6-
8. These injections consisted of normal saline and xylocaine. Id. Petitioner describes these injections as
“prolotherapy.” See, e.g., ECF No. 47 at 5.
9 Petitioner underwent a right shoulder MRI on December 20, 2017, with the following “Impression: 1. Mild
infraspinatus tendinosis. Mild overlaying bursitis in the subacromial subdeltoid bursa.” Ex. 6 at 144. On
October 13, 2020, Petitioner underwent an MR Arthorgram with the following impression: “1. Trace
subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis. 2. No rotator cuff tear or tendon retraction. 3. No glenoid labral tear or para
labral cyst. 4. Perhaps subtle prominence/widening of the acromioclavicular joint. … [which] could reflect a
sequela of interval surgery.” Ex. 27 at 18-19. Additionally, I note that Petitioner underwent an MRI of the
cervical spine on February 13, 2020. Ex. 20 at 1-2.
10 Petitioner underwent her first arthroscopic surgery on March 1, 2019, and her second on November 13,
2020. Ex. 14 at 3-4, Ex. 25 at 83-84.
4

Case 1:19-vv-01876-UNJ Document 58 Filed 04/08/22 Page 5 of 6
decompression; and 2) an arthroscopic extensive joint debridement. Ex. 25 at 83. Her
post-operative diagnoses included: right shoulder impingement, rotator cuff inflammation,
subacromial bursitis and adhesions. Id. After the second surgical intervention on
Petitioner’s right shoulder, Petitioner engaged in an additional 17 physical therapy
sessions. See, e.g., Ex. 29.
Petitioner’s final treatment session was her discharge from physical therapy on
January 28, 2021. At that time her condition had significantly improved, and she stated
her “greatest deficit” was “decreased functional strength as week as a 2/10 soreness
during maximal OH movement patters.” Ex. 29 at 111.
All of the above records factor into my determination. But I have also fully
considered the sworn statement of Petitioner – a 36-year-old mother of two at the time of
her vaccination – which details the limitations she experienced in her overall enjoyment
of life, physical activities, work duties, and exercise of daily functions attributable to her
injuries. Ex. 31. Petitioner establishes that her injury had a severe effect on her mental
state, and she became depressed, hopeless, and angry. Ex. 31 ¶ 9. Petitioner’s
depression is corroborated in the medical record, as she was diagnosed by one of her
treaters with an “[a]djustment disorder with depressed mood due to chronic pain.” Ex. 13
at 7. Additionally, Petitioner was unable to engage and be active with her young children.
Ex. 31 ¶¶11-12. Petitioner maintains she continues to live in daily pain and is unsure if
she will ever return to her pre-injury condition. Id. at ¶13.
Based upon all of the above, I find that Petitioner has demonstrated entitlement to
a substantial award for pain and suffering award, and one higher than what has been
recommended by Respondent.
Respondent cites two comparable cases - Pruitt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 17-0757V, 2021 WL 5292022 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 29, 2021)(awarding $185,000
for the petitioner’s past pain and suffering), and McDorman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 19-0814V, 2021 WL 5504698 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2021) (awarding
$200,000 for the petitioner’s past pain and suffering) – but argues they represent injuries
that were more severe than Petitioner’s injury, so Petitioner should be awarded only
$175,000.00 for pain and suffering.
Petitioner, by contrast, argues that her case is comparable to two other SIRVA
decisions11 involving also involving two surgical procedures, M.W v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 18-0267V, 2021 WL 3618177 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 17, 2021)
11 At the February 18, 2022 Motions Day hearing, Petitioner’s counsel offered additional comparables, but
I find of the cases offered by Petitioner those discussed above represent the best comparables.
5

Case 1:19-vv-01876-UNJ Document 58 Filed 04/08/22 Page 6 of 6
(awarding $195,000 for the petitioner’s 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 for the petitioner’s past pain and suffering).12 Petitioner thus
contends her demanded pain and suffering amount is precisely in line with these prior
determinations.
Each of the four cases cited above represent reasonable comparables (despite
some individual distinctions) involving petitioners who suffered extensive SIRVA injuries
requiring two surgical interventions. I find, however, that the Pruitt petitioner underwent
significantly less treatment than Ms. Meirndorf (in particular the Pruitt petitioner engaged
in only 14 physical therapy sessions (2021 WL 5292022, at *8) while Ms. Meirndorf
completed 79 sessions as discussed above). I also determine that overall, Petitioner’s
proposed comparables are somewhat more useful. And I credit that Petitioner’s demand
is consistent with those cases (whereas other Program petitioners often seek a higher
award, arguing that their suffering in uniquely distinguishable – an exceedingly rare
occurrence). I therefore adopt Petitioner’s proposed sum over Respondent’s.
III. Conclusion
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, I find that $200,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $215,938.25 (representing
an award of $200,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $15,938.25 for Petitioner’s
unreimbursed expenses) 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 Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12 Respondent during oral argument attempted to distinguish the Schoonover award for actual pain and
suffering since that petitioner suffered a permanent injury, however I note that the Schoonover petitioner
was awarded a future award of pain and suffering in consideration of her permanent partial disability.
6