VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00051
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00051
Petitioner: Janet Jackson
Filed: 2020-01-15
Decided: 2023-07-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-02-06
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 125548

AI-assisted case summary:
Janet Jackson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on February 6, 2018. The respondent conceded that her injury met the criteria for a Table injury. The court issued a ruling on entitlement, and subsequently, a decision awarding damages. Ms. Jackson sought $140,548.50, comprising $140,000.00 for pain and suffering and $548.50 for unreimbursable expenses. The respondent proposed a lower award of $87,500.00, arguing the injury was limited and mild due to treatment delays and compliance issues. The medical records indicated severe pain within hours of vaccination, leading to a diagnosis of internal impingement, cortisone injections, and physical therapy. Ultimately, Ms. Jackson underwent surgery for a rotator cuff repair approximately six months after vaccination. The court reviewed prior SIRVA cases and determined that an award of $125,000.00 for pain and suffering was appropriate, considering the severity, duration, and surgical treatment required, along with minor post-surgical complications. The requested $548.50 for unreimbursable expenses was also awarded. The total compensation awarded was $125,548.50.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00051-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-11-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/04/2021) regarding 32 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 34 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0051V
UNPUBLISHED
JANET JACKSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 4, 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)
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Ida Nassar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 15, 2020, Janet Jackson 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”) from the administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on
February 6, 2018. Petition at ¶1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 30, 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’s position is “that petitioner has satisfied the criteria
set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 34 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 2
Interpretation (“QAI”). That is, petitioner had no relevant history of pain, inflammation, or
dysfunction in her right shoulder; her pain and reduced range of motion occurred within
48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms were limited to the
shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality
was identified to explain her symptoms. 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_20-vv-00051-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-07
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/02/2023) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0051V
UNPUBLISHED
JANET JACKSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 2, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Injury (SIRVA)
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Nancy Tinch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 15, 2020, Janet Jackson 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 from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received
on February 6, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Although Ms. Jackson has been found
entitled to compensation, the parties were unable to agree to damages.
For the reasons discussed below, and after hearing argument from the parties, I
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of $125,548.50, representing
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 (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 12
$125,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $548.50 in unreimbursable out-of-pocket
expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately 20 months after this case was initiated, Respondent filed his Rule
4(c) Report on September 30, 2021, conceding that Petitioner was entitled to
compensation. ECF No. 31. A ruling on entitlement was subsequently issued on October
4, 2021. ECF No. 32. On March 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a status report indicating that
the parties had reached an impasse in their discussions regarding damages. ECF No. 39.
The parties then filed memoranda setting forth their respective positions on pain and
suffering - the only disputed damages element. ECF Nos. 40 (“Br.”), 43 (“Opp.”), 44
(“Repl.”). I proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to argue their positions at a
“Motions Day” hearing, at which time I would decide the disputed issues. ECF. No. 45.
That hearing was held on May 26, 2023,3 and the case is now ripe for decision.
II. Relevant Medical History
A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the Petition, the parties’
respective pre-hearing briefs, and in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report. In summary,
Petitioner’s medical history includes basal cell carcinoma, hypertension, hypothyroidism,
high cholesterol, left plantar fasciitis, and left hip bursitis, but no history of right-shoulder
problems. See Ex. 4-5. Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her right deltoid on February
6, 2018, which she described as “very painful.” Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 11 at ¶4.
Within several hours, her shoulder pain was severe, and later that same day she
had difficulty laying down, reaching outward, and sleeping. Ex 11 at ¶4. Petitioner stated
that her pain continued for weeks and that she used OTC medications but they did not
help. Id. at ¶5. She contemplated seeking medical care in Florida (where she and her
husband spent the winters) but did not think she would receive good care from a doctor
she hadn’t met before. Id. She decided to wait to see a doctor until they returned to IL. Id.
On March 19, 2018 (41 days post-vaccination), Petitioner presented to an
orthopedist complaining of “severe” right shoulder pain that began within hours of her flu
vaccination. Ex. 2 at 16. Petitioner reported “significant night pain” and her range of
motion was limited by pain. Id. She had positive impingement signs and was tender to
palpation. Id. An x-ray showed degenerative changes of the glenohumeral and
3 At the end of the hearing held on May 26, 2023, I issued an oral ruling from the bench on damages in this
case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the hearing, which is yet to be filed with the case’s
docket. The transcript from the hearing is, however, fully incorporated into this Decision.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 12
acromioclavicular joints. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with internal impingement of the
right shoulder and given a cortisone injection, which gave her immediate relief. Id. at 17.
She was also prescribed Mobic and referred to physical therapy. Id.
Petitioner presented to physical therapy on March 22, 2018, but declined treatment
when she learned that she had a $500 deductible. Ex. 6 at 74. She returned on March
28, 2018 (6 days later) for an initial evaluation. Id. at 71. She presented with right shoulder
pain, along with deficits in range of motion and strength, although she reported that she
could sleep and do most motions and activities. Id. Petitioner reported 75% improvement
since her cortisone injection and with the Mobic, and pain of 0/10 that day. Id. Petitioner
attended five physical therapy appointments through April 10, 2018. Id . at 59-72.
Petitioner stated that she stopped PT due to cost. Ex. 11 at ¶7,
On April 16, 2018, Petitioner returned to her orthopedist reporting significantly
diminished pain and significantly improved strength and range of motion. Ex. 2 at 14. The
treater recommended continuing Mobic and Petitioner’s home exercises. Id. Petitioner
returned to her orthopedist less than a month later, on May 7, 2018, reporting a recurrence
of symptoms. Ex. 2 at 12. He administered a second cortisone injection, again providing
Petitioner immediate relief. Id. at 13. Petitioner reported that she performed her home
exercise program from physical therapy after the second injection, with the goal of
avoiding surgery. Ex. 11 at ¶10. Her efforts did not work, but she “waited as long as she
could” before returning to her orthopedist, who she knew from previous discussions was
likely to recommend surgery. Id.
On May 15, 2018, Petitioner presented to her PCP for management of her chronic
conditions. Ex. 5 at 17-22. She was prescribed Meloxicam and Voltaren gel for her right
shoulder pain. Id. at 22. Petitioner had an MRI on July 24, 2018 which revealed a full-
thickness tear of the supraspinatus, a small labral tear, subacromial spurring and
narrowing (concerning for impingement), AC osteoarthritis, and mild atrophy. Ex. 2 at 47-
48. She returned to her orthopedist on July 30, 2018 to review the MRI results. Id. at 8.
He noted that Petitioner’s pain was “severe” and that she had failed conservative
measures. Id. at 9. He did not recommend further non-surgical treatment and offered
surgery. Id.
On August 13, 2018, Petitioner presented to her PCP for a pre -surgery
appointment. Ex. 5 at 23. She reported shoulder pain “about 50% of the time” and rated
her pain at 8-10/10 when laying down or with movement. Id. at 23-23. She stated that her
shoulder pain disturbed her sleep and that she was not able to lift her arm laterally at all.
Id. at 22.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 4 of 12
On August 21, 2018, Petitioner underwent right shoulder arthroscopic subacromial
decompression and distal clavicle excision with mini open rotator cuff repair. Ex. 3 at 5-
6. She experienced some respiratory complications from anesthesia and remained in the
hospital overnight. Id. at 7. Petitioner reported the decreased respiration she experienced
“caused her considerable anxiety.” Ex. 11 at ¶12.
On September 5, 2018, Petitioner presented for a two-week follow up with her
orthopedist. Ex. 2 at 6. She reported minimal pain and was no longer in a sling. Id.
Petitioner reported continued sleep disturbance from the immobilizer she was instructed
to wear. Ex. 11 at ¶13. She was unable to drive and required assistance with bathing. Id.
Petitioner returned to her orthopedist on October 3, 2018, for a 6-week post-
surgery follow-up. Ex. 2 at 4. She reported continued pain, with some stiffness and
weakness. Id. The orthopedist noted that Petitioner had been non-compliant with her use
of the immobilizer, and as a result he could not tell if she had normal post-operative
weakness or if the surgery was a failure. Id. at 5. He recommended physical therapy –
with the expectation that pain would decrease and that strength and range of motion
would improve if the surgery was successful. Id.
On October 5, 2018, Petitioner presented for a post-surgery physical therapy
evaluation. Ex. 6 at 54. She reported dull pain and some numbness in her thumb. Id. She
attended 23 physical therapy sessions through December 31, 2018. Id. at 2.
On November 14, 2018, Petitioner went to her orthopedist for a follow-up. Ex. 8 at
6. She reported minimal pain and excellent strength and range of motion. Id. The
orthopedist noted that Petitioner had significantly improved symptoms, but could continue
to improve with additional physical therapy. Id. at 7.
On November 27, 2018, Petitioner saw a chiropractor for treatment of lower back
pain she attributed to her shoulder physical therapy. Ex. 10 at 5. Petitioner rated her back
pain as 9/10, but stated she was able to perform her work duties and had not missed any
time at work. Id. Petitioner received 3 chiropractic treatments. Id. at 4-9.
On February 13, 2019 (one-year post-vaccination), Petitioner returned to her
orthopedist for a final follow-up visit. Ex. 8 at 4. She reported minimal pain and excellent
strength and ROM. Id. No further treatment was recommended. Id. at 5.
Petitioner did not seek further treatment for her right shoulder pain. As of January
6, 2020, Petitioner stated that she continued to struggle with certain movements, such as
4

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 5 of 12
clasping a bra, but noted that she is “very happy with the progress her right shoulder has
made.” Ex. 11 at ¶15.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
A. Petitioner
Ms. Jackson seeks $140,548.50, consisting of $140,000.00 as compensation for
her pain and suffering, plus $548.50 for past unreimbursable expenses. Br. at 24. The
parties agree on the amount requested for out-of-pocket expenses. Br. at 16; Opp. at 17-
18.
Petitioner argues that her SIRVA injury caused her severe pain, required
significant treatment, including surgery, over 12 months, and impacted her mental health.
Br. at 18-20. Petitioner reported severe levels of pain during her pre-surgery treatment,
which included two cortisone injections and physical therapy. Id.; Repl. at 5-6.
During the hearing and in her brief, Petitioner discussed prior SIRVA cases that
involved injured claimants, arguing that an award of $140,000.00 in pain and suffering
was reasonable and appropriate given that her circumstances were comparable. Br. at
21-23.
B. Respondent
Respondent suggests that a lesser award of $87,500.00 is appropriate. Opp. at
17. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s SIRVA injury was “limited and mild” because
Petitioner waited 41 days to seek treatment, received “immediate relief” from two
cortisone injections, and reported 75% improvement after her first pre-surgery physical
therapy appointment. Id. at 8-9. Respondent also suggests that Petitioner’s non-
compliance with treatment contributed to her pain, and thus justifies a lower pain and
suffering award. Id. at 9-10. Finally, Respondent highlights the fact that Petitioner had a
good recovery after treatment. Id. at 11-12.
Although Respondent did not specifically distinguish all of the cases cited by
Petitioner, he generally argued that Petitioner’s comparable decisions involved petitioners
who consistently had more severe pain and required more aggressive treatment. Opp. at
12-15. During the hearing and in his brief, Respondent also presented prior SIRVA cases
as the basis for his proposed pain and suffering award. Opp. At 15-17.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 6 of 12
IV. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4).
Additionally, a petitioner may recover “actual unreimbursable expenses incurred
before the date of judgment awarding such expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-
related injury for which the petitioner seeks compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on
behalf of the person who suffered such injury, and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other
remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined to be reasonably necessary.” Section
15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to each element of
compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health & 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 (citing 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 that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For
the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims, were
assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the
majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
6

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 7 of 12
contemplated that the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field
of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
The Graves court maintained that 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.” Graves, 109 Fed. Cl. at 589-90. Instead,
the Court assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and
suffering awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside
of the Vaccine Program. Id. at 593-95. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap
merely cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all
possible awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. While Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, and its reasoning to some extent misapprehends
the reasonable efforts of special masters to place comparable damages decisions in
context of similar injuries, its emphasis on the petitioner’s own showing/entitlement to a
specific award has great merit.
V. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU5
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of January 1, 2022, 2,371 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU
on July 1, 2014. Compensation was awarded in 2,306 of these cases, with the remaining
65 cases dismissed.
Of the compensated cases, 1,339 SPU SIRVA cases involved a prior ruling that
petitioner was entitled to compensation. In only 88 of these cases was the amount of
damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision. 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 precedent setting
forth what similarly-situated claimants should also receive.6
5 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.
6 See, e.g., 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).
7

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 8 of 12
1,223 of this subset of post-entitlement determination, compensation-awarding
cases, were the product of informal settlement - cases via proffer and 28 cases via
stipulation. Although all proposed amounts denote an agreement reached by the parties,
those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than any formal agreement
or acknowledgment by Respondent that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages. Of course, even though any such informally-resolved case must still be
approved by a special master, these 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, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
(emphasis in original).
The remaining 967 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. Due to the complexity of these
settlement discussions, many which involve multiple competing factors, these awards do
not constitute a reliable gauge of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded
in other SPU SIRVA cases.
The data for all groups described above reflect the expected differences in
outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated7
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 88 1,223 28 967
Lowest $40,757.91 $25,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000.00
1st Quartile $70,950.73 $70,000.00 $90,000.00 $42,500.00
Median $95,974.09 $90,000.00 $122,886.42 $60,390.00
3rd Quartile $125,269.46 $116,662.57 $161,001.79 $88,051.88
Largest $265,034.87 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
7 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
8

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 9 of 12
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 88 SPU SIRVA cases which required a reasoned damages decision, the
actual or past pain and suffering award varied from $40,000.00 to $210,000.00, with
$94,000.00 as the median amount. Only five of these cases involved an award for future
pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from $250.00 to $1,500.00.8
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 experienced
this greater pain for three months or less. All petitioners displayed only mild to moderate
limitations in range of motion, 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. None required surgery. The duration of the 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. Only one petitioner provided evidence of an ongoing SIRVA, and it was expected
to resolve within the subsequent year.
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 95 PT sessions over a duration of more than two
years and multiple cortisone injections, was required in these cases. In four cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
8 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).
9

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 10 of 12
VI. Appropriate Compensation in this SIRVA Case
A. Awareness of Suffering
Awareness of suffering is not typically a disputed issue in cases involving SIRVA
– and it does not appear to be herein. Neither party has argued that Ms. Jackson lacked
awareness of her injury, thus, I find that Petitioner had full awareness of her suffering.
B. Severity and Duration of Pain and Suffering
Petitioner’s medical records and affidavit describe an overall moderate SIRVA
injury that required surgery to treat. Although Petitioner delayed treatment some in the
beginning, her delay of 41 days (just shy of six weeks) was not extensive, and was
reasonable considering her travel away from home at the time. Petitioner consistently
(other than shortly after her cortisone injections) reported high pain levels prior to her
surgery. Ex. 2 at 8, 16; Ex. 5 at 22-23; Ex. 11 at ¶4. She was prescribed one medication,
had five physical therapy treatments, and two cortisone injections prior to her surgery.
Petitioner underwent a successful surgery, including both arthroscopic and open
procedures, about six months after her vaccination. Ex. 3 at 5-6. After her surgery,
Petitioner remained in the hospital overnight due to a minor complication from the
anesthesia. Id. at 7. Other than her overnight stay, Petitioner’s recovery after surgery was
excellent. She had four follow-up appointments with her orthopedist, 23 physical therapy
treatments, and three chiropractic treatments. At her six-week post-surgical appointment,
Petitioner’s orthopedist noted that she had not been using the immobilizer that he had
prescribed, which put her at risk for a failed surgery. Ex. 2 at 5. Although Petitioner
ultimately enjoyed a good recovery, her non-compliance with her post-surgical
instructions did complicate her treatment to a degree. At her final appointment,
approximately one year after her vaccination, Petitioner reported minimal pain and had
regained excellent strength and range of motion. Ex. 8 at 4-5.
Both parties provided reasonable comparable prior SIRVA cases to support their
proposed award. In her brief, Petitioner cited 14 cases in which claimants were awarded
between $120,000 and $135,000 in pain and suffering, arguing that although Ms.
Jackson’s treatment course was comparable, her surgical complications justify a higher
award. Br. at 23-24. At the hearing, Petitioner cited three additional, and more recent,
cases featuring pain and suffering awards between $108,000 and $115,000. See Knasel
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.20-1366V, 2023 WL 2547961 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 14, 2023); Kestner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0025, 2023 WL
2447499 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2023); Wylie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
10

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 11 of 12
No. 20-1314V, 2022 WL 17968929 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 7, 2022). Petitioner argued
that Ms. Jackson should receive a higher pain and suffering award than in those three
cases because her treatment course was longer and because of her post -surgery
complications.
Respondent also cited two cases in his brief and an additional two cases in his oral
argument.9 The first case, Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0279V,
2021 WL 250093, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2021), involved a petitioner whose SIRVA
injury required surgery, but was awarded $97,500 in pain and suffering. The Shelton
petitioner also had three cortisone injections and 26 physical therapy treatments over a
two-year period. Id. However, the Shelton petitioner had a notably significant delay in
starting treatment (approximately five months) and another gap in treatment of
approximately three months, suggesting that she was able to tolerate her pain for a
significant period of time without treatment. Id. at *7. Because of that fact, the pain and
suffering award in Shelton was lower than it would have been absent the delay. Although
Ms. Jackson waited a few weeks to seek treatment once she returned to her home state,
the delay herein is not comparable to Shelton.
Respondent also cited Hunt v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, No. 19-
1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2022), in which the petitioner
was awarded $95,000.00 in pain and suffering after a SIRVA injury treated with three
cortisone injections, 19 sessions of physical therapy, and surgery over a 15-month period.
Like Shelton, however, Hunt involved special circumstances – that petitioner enjoyed
various periods of little-to-no pain and gaps during treatment, justifying a lower pain and
suffering award. Id. at 8-9. In this case, although Ms. Jackson reported “immediate relief”
after each cortisone injection, her relief was short-lived and she continued to treat her
injury consistently through her year-long treatment. The only gap in treatment longer than
one month prior to her surgery was between May 15, 2018 and July 24, 2018 while
Petitioner attempted her home exercises to avoid surgery. See Ex. 2 at 47-48; Ex. 5 at
22; Ex. 11 at ¶10. Respondent has not provided evidence of the type of unique
circumstances that would support a reduction in Petitioner’s pain and suffering
comparable to Shelton or Hunt.
In addition to the parties’ proposed comparable cases, I deem the present action
to be factually similar to another recent case: Roberson v. Sec’y of Health & Human
9 Respondent cited George v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, No. 18-0426, 2020 WL 4692451
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 13, 2020) and Langdon v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, No. 20-1311,
2023 WL 3411103 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 7, 2023) in his oral argument. The George petitioner did not
require surgery to treat her SIRVA injury, which is less helpful when compared to Ms. Jackson’s treatment.
The Langdon petitioner required surgery, but treated his injury for nine months and then had a two year
gap in treatment, which is clearly distinguishable from Ms. Jackson’s experience. Langdon, 2023 WL
3411103, at *3-4.
11

Case 1:20-vv-00051-UNJ Document 51 Filed 07/07/23 Page 12 of 12
Servs., No. 19-0091V, 2020 WL 5512542 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2020). In
Roberson, the petitioner sought treatment for his SIRVA only seven days after his
vaccination, received two cortisone injections, and had 34 sessions of physical therapy
(13 before and 21 after surgery). Id. at *3. Like Ms. Jackson, his MRI revealed a full-
thickness tear, necessitating a significant arthroscopic surgery, which was successful. Id.
The Roberson petitioner treated his SIRVA for approximately 11 months and was
awarded $125,000 in pain and suffering. Id. The degree of factual similarity between the
treatment course of the Roberson petitioner and Ms. Jackson’s experience suggests an
award of pain and suffering in the same range. Although Ms. Jackson waited longer to
seek treatment initially and had fewer physical therapy treatments, her injury required a
more significant surgical procedure, including a partially open repair, and she experienced
minor surgical complications that caused her increased anxiety. See Ex. 3 at 5-6; Ex. 11
at ¶12.
Under such circumstances, and considering the arguments presented by both
parties at the hearing, a review of the cited cases, I find that $125,000.00 in compensation
for past pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case.
C. Award for Past Unreimbursed Expenses
Petitioner requests $548.50 in past unreimbursable expenses, which is agreed-
upon by Respondent. Br. at 16; Opp. at 17-18. Therefore, Petitioner is awarded this sum
without adjustment.
CONCLUSION
In light of all of the above, the I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$125,548.50, (representing $125,000.00 for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering and
$548.50 for unreimbursable medical expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner, Janet Jackson. This amount represents compensation for all damages that
would be available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
12