VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00294
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00294
Petitioner: Candace Reynolds
Filed: 2020-03-16
Decided: 2022-11-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-11-08
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 150000

AI-assisted case summary:
Candace Reynolds, an adult, received an influenza vaccine on November 8, 2018. She filed a petition for compensation on March 16, 2020, alleging a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. After settlement discussions and a motion for ruling on the record, an expedited hearing was held on September 30, 2022. The Chief Special Master found that Petitioner met all criteria for a Table SIRVA, including that her injury manifested within 48 hours of vaccination, despite a delay in seeking treatment. Causation was presumed as it was a Table injury. The court awarded Candace Reynolds $150,000.00 for actual pain and suffering. This award was based on the severity and duration of her injury, including two cortisone injections and 24 physical therapy sessions prior to surgery, and further treatment and pain post-surgery. The award falls between comparable SIRVA cases.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00294-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-11-07
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/06/2022) regarding 42 Ruling on Entitlement and DECISION of the Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0294V
UNPUBLISHED
CANDACE REYNOLDS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 6, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Table
HUMAN SERVICES, Injury; Decision Awarding Damages;
Pain and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)
Respondent. Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
David John Carney, Green & Schafle, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 16, 2020, Candace Reynolds filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury which required surgery
after receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 8, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 4-5.
After Petitioner’s current counsel was substituted as attorney of record (ECF No. 13),
Petitioner amended her claim to allege that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table. Amended
Petition at 1, ¶ 32, ECF No. 16. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
1 Although I have not formally designated this Decision for publication, I am required to post it on the United
States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, because it
contains a reasoned explanation for my determination. 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 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons described below, and after holding a brief hearing on entitlement
and damages in this matter, I find that Petitioner is entitled compensation, and I award
damages in the amount $150,000.00, representing actual pain and suffering.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Almost thirteen months after the case was assigned to SPU – on June 21, 2022 -
Respondent filed a status report indicating he was willing to engage in settlement
discussions. ECF No. 31. However, the next day Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on
the record, asserting that she had meet all requirements for a Table SIRVA and
requesting compensation in the amount of $175,000.00. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on
Record and Brief in Support of Damages (“Motion”), filed June 22, 2022, ECF No. 34.
Respondent responded to Petitioner’s demand within 30 days and filed a response to her
motion thereafter. Status Report, filed July 22, 2022, ECF No. 36; Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report and Response to Petitioner’s Motion (“Response”), filed Aug. 22, 2022, ECF No.
38. On September 6, 2022, Petitioner filed her reply. Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Support
of Petitioner’s Motion (“Reply”), ECF No. 41.
In late August 2022, I proposed this case for an expedited hearing on September
30, 2022, at which time I would decide the disputed issues based on all evidence filed to
date and any oral argument from counsel. ECF No. 39. The parties agreed, and the
“Motions Day” hearing took place as scheduled. ECF No. 40; Minute Entry dated Sept.
30, 2022.3 During the hearing, I orally ruled on Petitioner’s entitlement to compensation,
and then made an oral damages determination. This Decision memorializes those
findings and determinations.
II. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
3 David Carney appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and Tyler King appeared on behalf of Respondent. As of
the date of this Decision, the transcript of the September 30, 2022 Motions Day hearing has not been filed,
but my oral ruling is incorporated by reference herein.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 3 of 9
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 4 of 9
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017).
B. Factual Finding Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
The only Table requirement for SIRVA that Respondent contests is the second
criterion - whether the onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
Response at 9; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii); see also 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B)
(requiring the first symptom or manifestation of onset within 48 hours of vaccination for a
SIRVA injury following receipt of a flu vaccine). He emphasizes that Petitioner, a nurse
who worked at the hospital where she received the vaccine alleged as causal, did not
report her shoulder injury or seek treatment until eighteen days post-vaccination, and
continued to work during this time. Response at 9.
Thus, Respondent questions whether the delay in seeking treatment is reasonable.
I find otherwise. The delay in question is not facially unreasonable, especially in
comparison to what has characterized the course of seeking treatment for many other
successful claims. In addition, it is frequently observed that claimants expect the post-
vaccination pain to be transient or not serious enough to merit evaluation by a medical
professional. The fact that this Petitioner is herself a medical professional does not alter
this oft-observed aspect of “human nature” when it comes to realizing that post-
vaccination pain is in fact serious.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 5 of 9
Otherwise, the record contains sufficient evidence showing Petitioner has satisfied
the other QAI criteria. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i) & (iii)-(iv). A thorough review of the
record in this case does not reveal either a prior or current condition, pain and limited
range of motion (“ROM”) other than in Petitioner’s injured left shoulder, and no other
condition or abnormality which would explain Petitioner’s symptoms. Thus, and as I stated
during the expedited hearing, all elements of a Table SIRVA claim have been
preponderantly established.
C. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, she need not
prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, she must satisfy the other requirements
of Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of her injury,
and the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D). Respondent
does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the
overall record contains preponderant evidence which fulfills these additional
requirements.
III. Compensation to be Awarded
A. Parties Arguments
Petitioner seeks only compensation for her pain and suffering. Maintaining that she
continued to suffer shoulder pain more than two years post-vaccination and describing
her pain as severe, Petitioner seeks $175,000.00. Motion at 1, 33-34. She favorably
compares the facts and circumstances in her case to those experienced by the petitioners
in Schoonover, Hooper, and Reed, who received $200,000.00, $185,000.00, and
$160,000.00, respectively for their past pain and suffering.5 Motion at 23-25. Additionally,
the petitioners in Schoonover and Reed received an award for future pain and suffering.
Schoonover, 2020 WL 5351341, at *1, 5-6; Hooper, 2019 WL 1561519, at *1, 9-10.
Petitioner also cites three cases which he characterizes “as a floor for pain and suffering
damages in most SIRVA surgery cases” (id. at 26) - Wilt, Dobbins, and Collado.6
5 Schoonover v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1324V, 2020 WL 5351341 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 5, 2020); Hooper v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-12V, 2019 WL 1561519 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019); Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2019).
6 Wilt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0446V, 2020 WL 1490757 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 24,
2020); Dobbins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0854V, 2018 WL 4611267 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 15, 2018); Collado v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0225V, 2018 WL 3433352 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. June 6, 2018, 2018).
5

Case 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 6 of 9
In contrast, Respondent asserts that Petitioner should receive the lesser amount
of $110,000.00. Response at 11, 15. Emphasizing Petitioner’s 18-day delay in seeking
treatment and mildness of her limited ROM prior to surgery (id. at 11-12), Respondent
argues that the facts and circumstance more closely resemble, but are less severe, than
the circumstances of the petitioner in Wilson who received $130,000.00.7 Response at
12-13. He also maintains that Petitioner’s case is distinguishable from the cases
Petitioner cites, because of the injury’s more mild nature. Id. at 13-14.
In her reply, Petitioner similarly argues that the case cited by Respondent is not
appropriate comparable cases. Reply at 5-7. She also cites additional cases which she
maintains are similar – S.C. and Stromer, in which petitioners were awarded $160,000.00
and $145,00.00 for their past pain and suffering, respectively.8 Reply at 9-10.
A. Legal Standards for 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 Friberg v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1727V, 2022 WL 3152827 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6,
2022).
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.9
7 Wilson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0035V, 2021 WL 1530731 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
2021).
8 S.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0341V, 2021 WL 2949763 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 14,
2021); Stromer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1969V, 2022 WL 1562110 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 8, 2022).
9 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)).
6

Case 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 7 of 9
B. Appropriate Compensation for 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 her
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury. 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, signed declarations,10 filings, and all
assertions made by the parties in written documents and at the expedited hearing held
on September 30, 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.
Pursuant to my oral ruling on September 30, 2022 (which is fully adopted herein),
I find that $150,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation
for Petitioner’s pain and suffering.
When making this determination, I have considered relevant facts such as the
mildness of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain and limited ROM – especially prior to surgery,
the longer duration of her overall injury, and the difficulties she experienced during her
post-surgical recovery. The medical records contain numerous entries showing Petitioner
reported no pain at rest and maximum levels which ranged from three to six and only
slightly limited or full ROM. E.g., Exhibit 10 at 16, 481, 574. However, Petitioner
consistently reported symptoms and sought treatment during the three years post-
vaccination. Her treatment involved two cortisone injections and 24 physical therapy
(“PT”) sessions prior to surgery and two cortisone injections and 25 PT sessions post-
surgery. Exhibit 3, 17 (orthopedic records); Exhibit 10 (PT records).
And the symptoms Petitioner experienced after her surgery, arthroscopic
synovectomy, glenohumeral joint debridement, biceps tenodesis, and subacromial
decompression performed in late August 2019 – approximately nine months post-
vaccination - were more severe than those she experienced before surgery. E.g., Exhibit
3 at 6 (describing worsening pain on March 12, 2020, seven months post-surgery). On
several instances Petitioner reported feeling a popping sensation (id. at 14; Exhibit 10 at
59), and at least one treating physician thought Petitioner may have “pulled her biceps
from her tenodesis site” (Exhibit 3 at 14). More than six months post-surgery, treating
physicians were seeking new treatment options to combat Petitioner’s continued left
10 Rather than affidavits, the statements provided by Petitioner are declarations signed under penalty of
perjury as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 8 of 9
shoulder pain and prescribing Gabapentin. E.g., id. at 6-8 (visits on February 13 and
March 12, 2020). Ten months post-surgery and almost two years post-vaccination, she
was assessed as having a five percent disability. Id. at 3 (June 19, 2020 visit).
Although the comparable case cited by Respondent involved similar pain levels
and overall duration, the Wilson petitioner required less treatment than Petitioner. Wilson,
2021 WL 1530731, at *3 n.6 (indicating the Wilson petitioner underwent five PT sessions
prior to surgery and thirteen PT sessions after surgery). As I stated during the Motions
Day hearing, I also see similarities between the facts and circumstances in this case and
the S.C. and Stromer cases proposed by Petitioner. S.C., 2021 WL 2949763, at *4-5;
Stromer, 2022 WL 1562110, at *9-10. Therefore, I find an appropriate award for
Petitioner’s past pain and suffering should fall between the Wilson and S.C. awards, and
should be slightly more than the amount awarded in Stromer - $150,000.00.
IV. Conclusion
For all the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the entire
record, I find that Petitioner’s left shoulder injury meets the definition for a Table
SIRVA. Thus, causation is presumed, and Petitioner is entitled to compensation in
this case. Furthermore, I find that $150,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.11
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $150,000.00, representing compensation for her actual pain
and suffering in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine
Act. Id.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance
with this Decision.12
11 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
12 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.
8

Case 1:20-vv-00294-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/07/22 Page 9 of 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9