VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00508
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00508
Petitioner: Jerry Taylor
Filed: 2020-04-27
Decided: 2023-11-02
Vaccine: Hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 2018-10-23
Condition: left shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 66449

AI-assisted case summary:
Jerry Taylor filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of a Hepatitis B vaccine he received on October 23, 2018. He also received a pneumococcal vaccine and an influenza vaccine on the same day. Mr. Taylor experienced pain in his left shoulder starting several days after the vaccinations, which worsened over time. He sought medical attention approximately two months after the vaccination, reporting pain and reduced range of motion. He underwent treatment including steroid injections, physical therapy, and pain medication. Respondent conceded entitlement to compensation, agreeing that Mr. Taylor had no prior history of shoulder issues and that his symptoms were limited to the injection site. The case proceeded to a damages award. The court awarded Mr. Taylor $65,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $1,449.05 for actual unreimbursable expenses, for a total award of $66,449.05. The decision noted that Mr. Taylor's injury was considered mild to moderate, with pain and limitations improving with conservative treatment over several months.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00508-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-10-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/07/2021) regarding 22 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/08/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0508V
UNPUBLISHED
JERRY TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 7, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Hepatitis B (Hep B)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 27, 2020, Jerry Taylor 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 he suffered left shoulder injuries related to vaccine
administration as a result of a Hepatitis B vaccine received on October 23, 2018. Petition
at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
On September 3, 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 agrees that “petitioner has no history of pain, inflammation,
or dysfunction in his left shoulder; his pain and reduced range of motion were limited 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-00508-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/08/21 Page 2 of 2
the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality
was identified to explain his symptoms.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that the
statutory six month sequela requirement has been satisfied and that Petitioner has
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.
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-00508-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-02
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/02/2023) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0508V
JERRY TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 2, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 27, 2020, Jerry Taylor 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 that he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from a Hepatitis B vaccine received on October 23,
2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters ,and although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties could not
agree on a damages sum.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to a damages award
in the amount of $65,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $1,449.05 in actual
unreimbursable expenses.
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 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 11
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was activated on May 28, 2020 (ECF No. 9). In September of 2021,
Respondent conceded that Petitioner was entitled to compensation, and the parties
began damages discussions (ECF Nos. 21-23). On December 19, 2022, Petitioner
reported that they had reached an impasse (ECF No. 36). Petitioner therefore filed a
damages brief on February 9, 2023 (ECF No. 41), and Respondent reacted on March 23,
2023 (ECF No. 43). On October 2, 2023, the parties filed a joint status report stating that
they agree that Petitioner should be awarded $1,449.05 for past unreimbursable medical
expenses (ECF No. 45). The matter of damages is now ripe for resolution.
II. Relevant Medical History
On October 23, 2018, Petitioner received a Hepatitis B vaccine intramuscularly in
his left deltoid. Ex. 1 at 2. On the same date, he also received a pneumococcal
polysaccharide vaccine in his left deltoid, and an influenza vaccine in his right deltoid. Id.
The vaccines were administered during a routine follow up visit with Petitioner’s internist
Dr. Katherine Greco. Exs. 5 at 27; 7 at 146.
Almost two months later, on December 20, 2018, Petitioner messaged Dr. Greco,
reporting that he had been experiencing pain in his left shoulder that began several days
after the vaccinations. Ex. 7 at 221. He thought it would go away, but instead it was
worsening and he was getting worried and inquired whether he should be seen. Id. He
had been taking ibuprofen that helped him get through the day. Id. A nurse responded,
asking Petitioner to schedule an office visit. Id. at 220-21.
Petitioner was seen two days later (December 22nd) at Peachtree Immediate
Care. Ex. 2 at 1. He reported left shoulder pain since his vaccinations seven weeks earlier.
Id. His pain level was eight out of ten. Id. On examination, his left shoulder exhibited
moderate tenderness and reduced active and passive range of motion (“ROM”). Id. at 1-
2. X-rays were normal, other than moderate degenerative changes. Id. at 8. He received
an intramuscular injection of dexamethasone and methylprednisone, and was given
meloxicam and a physical therapy (“PT”) referral. Id. at 2-3.
On December 26, 2018, Petitioner was seen by internist Dr. Julien Orieta, reporting
shoulder pain that began two months earlier after receiving vaccine injections. Ex. 5 at
50. Ibuprofen was ineffective, and the pain was worse at night. Id. On examination, his
ROM was decreased in abduction and he had pain with external rotation. Id. at 51. Dr.
Orieta referred Petitioner for an orthopedic consult and ordered an MRI. Id. It does not
appear that the MRI was later performed, however.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 3 of 11
On January 15, 2019, Petitioner presented to orthopedic physician assistant
(“PA”) David White for a consultation. Ex. 5 at 61. Petitioner reported moderate left
shoulder pain and stiffness that began in October of 2018 following vaccinations. Id.
Ibuprofen and Mobic provided minimal relief. Id. The intramuscular steroid injection he
received on December 22nd had provided about five days of relief. Id. On examination,
his left shoulder was tender to palpation. Id. at 64. His ROM in forward elevation was 90
degrees (active ROM) and 140 degrees (passive ROM). Id. He had positive Neer’s
impingement signs. Id. Petitioner was assessed with left shoulder joint pain and stiffness.
Id. PA White discussed treatment options, including ice/heat, rest, activity modification, a
home exercise program, anti inflammatories/Tylenol, formal PT, steroid injections, and
possible surgical intervention. Id. at 65. Petitioner elected to move forward with PT and
Diclofenac. Id.
Petitioner presented for a PT initial evaluation on February 28, 2019. Ex. 4 at
12. He explained that his pain began the evening that he received vaccinations in his left
arm, and had persisted and worsened since then. Id. His pain was worse at night and
with activity. Id. at 11. Medication helped him sleep, and a cortisone injection in late
December helped for “only 2 weeks.” Id. at 12. His pain was currently at a level of two out
of ten, and at worst his pain it ranged to eight out of ten. Id. On examination, his left
shoulder active ROM was 110 degrees in flexion, 95 degrees in abduction, and 30
degrees in external rotation. Id. He had positive results on the empty can test. Id.
Petitioner continued PT through May 6, 2019, attending a total of 19 sessions.
Ex. 4 at 12-69. After almost a month of PT, on March 25, 2019, his left shoulder active
ROM had improved to 148 degrees in flexion, 112 degrees in abduction, and 35 degrees
in external rotation. Id. at 30. He still needed medicine to sleep at night and had pain with
sudden movements, certain types of motion, and lifting weights. Id. A few weeks later, on
April 16, 2019, his active ROM had improved to 150 degrees in flexion, 142 degrees in
abduction, and 60 degrees in external rotation. Id. at 48. His pain occurred mostly at night.
Id. At his final PT session on May 6, 2019, Petitioner reported that he was now able to
sleep five to six hours at night, as compared to one to two hours previously. Id. at 69. He
still had some pain but had shown improvement, and was discharged with a good
prognosis. Id. He rated his current pain level as two out of ten, at worst ranging to six out
of ten. Id.
On May 21, 2019, Petitioner returned to PA White. Ex. 5 at 119. He reported
that he had done 8-10 weeks of PT “with good improvement.” Id. He was now able to
sleep on his shoulder, and his ROM was much better. Id. He had some remaining stiffness
and discomfort, but was happy with the improvement. Id. The pain was worse at night,
and stiffness was worse in the morning. Id. at 124. His left shoulder examination was
3

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 4 of 11
“unremarkable,” with no tenderness to palpation, negative results on the Hawkin’s and
Jobe’s tests, and negative Neer’s sign. Id. at 122-23. PA White assessed him with
adhesive capsulitis and osteoarthritis of the left shoulder. Id. at 123. Petitioner declined
an MRI or cortisone injection, and was directed to return to care if his symptoms persisted
or worsened. Id.
On October 4, 2019, Petitioner was seen by internist Dr. Neha Thakor to
establish care. Ex. 7 at 494. He reported that his shoulder was “just now improving.” Id.
He was given a refill of diclofenac for left shoulder pain and stiffness. Id. at 497. He was
given an influenza vaccine in his left deltoid. Ex. 1 at 1. Petitioner returned to Dr. Thakor
on November 14, 2019. Ex. 7 at 535. The “active problem" list included left shoulder
stiffness, but the record is otherwise silent on his left shoulder. Id.
Eight months later (July 12, 2020), Petitioner messaged Dr. Thakor. Ex. 7 at
763. He stated that he had been taking diclofenac for his shoulder, and wondered if it
would help with his back pain as well. Id.
Over a year later, on September 6, 2021, Petitioner messaged Dr. Thakor
inquiring about his diclofenac refill. Ex. 7 at 1040. He stated that he tried not to take the
tablets daily, trying to use ointment or something less potent as much as possible. Id. The
record does not indicate the condition for which he was taking diclofenac.
III. Affidavit and Unsworn Personal Statement
Petitioner submitted an affidavit and an undated and unsworn personal statement
in support of his claim. Exs. 6, 8. The affidavit fulfills the minimal statutory requirements
for a Vaccine Act claim, but provides no details about his condition and its effect on him.
Ex. 6.
Petitioner’s personal statement provides some support to his claim; however, it is
unsworn, which reduces its weight. Ex. 8. Petitioner states that “this has been a very life
changing and debilitating experience.” Id. He states he has “been in constant pain since
I received the vaccines,” rating it at six or seven during the day and between eight and
ten at night. Id. He takes prescription medication at night to “even have a possibility of a
few hours sleep” and states that sometimes he gets no sleep because of throbbing
shoulder pain. Id.
Petitioner asserts that before his injury he was a very active person and that his
injury “has robbed [him] of some of the activities” he previously enjoyed. Ex. 8. He has
struggled to do things he normally could do, such as caring for fish aquariums, bowling,
4

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 5 of 11
fishing, swimming, tennis, drawing, painting, and household and car repairs and
maintenance, getting dressed, showering, and cooking. Id.
IV. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner proposes an award of $75,000.00 in pain and suffering. Petitioner’s Brief
in Support of Damages, filed Feb.8, 2023 (ECF No. 41) (“Br.”). He cites six cases in
support of his position, all of which involve pain and suffering awards precisely consistent
with his demand. Goring v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1458V, 2019 WL
6049009 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 23, 2019); Capasso v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 17-14V, 2019 WL 5290524 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 10, 2019); Pruett v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-561V, 2019 WL 3297083 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 30, 2019); Bordelon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1892V, 2019 WL
2385896 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 24, 2019); Attig v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 17-1029V, 2019 WL 1749405 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 19, 2019); and Kim v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-418V, 2018 WL 3991022 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July
20, 2018).
Petitioner argues that he suffered a mild to moderate SIRVA. Br. at *8. He did not
seek care until two months after his vaccination because he thought the pain would go
away. Id. He treated with 19 PT sessions, and at discharge his ROM had improved and
he was sleeping better, but still had stiffness and discomfort. Id. Petitioner asserts that
his case is similar to the six cases he cites, including in his brief a chart comparing the
time between vaccination and initial presentation, duration of injury, and treatment
received for his injury to the other cases. Id. at *9. Petitioner requests $1,449.05 for out
of pocket medical expenses, stating that Respondent is in agreement on this sum. Id. at
*1.
Respondent counters that Petitioner’s pain and suffering award should not exceed
$42,500.00. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Brief, filed Mar. 23, 2023 (ECF No.
43) (“Resp.”). To support his proposed award, Respondent cites Ramos v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 18-1005V, 2021 WL 688576 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2021)
(awarding $40,000.00 in pain and suffering); and Merwitz v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 20-1141V, 2022 WL 17820768 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 14, 2022) (awarding
$50,000.00 in pain and suffering).
Respondent characterizes Petitioner’s injury as mild and limited, as evidenced by
his delaying care for two months. Resp. at *9. The objective record evidence indicates
that his symptoms were limited to approximately seven months, and he showed
significant improvement with conservative treatment including an intramuscular steroid
injection, 19 sessions of PT, and prescription pain medication. Id. Although Petitioner later
5

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 6 of 11
received refills of diclofenac, Respondent argues that the evidence weighs in favor of
Petitioner’s SIRVA being essentially resolved, noting that he was given a flu vaccine in
his left shoulder a year after the vaccine at issue in this case. Id. Concerning the
September 2021 diclofenac refill, Respondent argues that it is unclear why Petitioner was
taking this medication. Id. Respondent states that he does not object to Petitioner’s
request for past unreimbursable expenses. Id. at *1.3
V. 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 &
Human 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 & Human 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 & Human 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 & Human Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240
(Fed. Cir. 1995)).
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 & Human 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
3 While Respondent’s brief proposed an award of $1,499.05 for past unreimbursed expenses (Resp. at *1),
the parties later clarified that they agreed the award should be $1,449.05 (ECF No.45).
6

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 7 of 11
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
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Human 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 a decision of the
Court of Federal Claims several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013). Graves instead emphasized the importance of
assessing pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence specific to the injured
individual, 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 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.
VI. 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 July 1, 2023, 3,304 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU on
July 1, 2014. Compensation was awarded in 3,211 of these cases, with the remaining 93
cases dismissed.
1,834 of the compensated SPU SIRVA cases were the result of a reasoned ruling
that petitioner was entitled to compensation (as opposed to a settlement or concession).6
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.
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 The remaining 1,377 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
7

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 8 of 11
In only 173 of these cases, however, was the amount of damages also determined by a
special master in a reasoned decision.7 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.8
The data for all groups described above reflect the expected differences in
outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated9
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 173 1,632 29 1,377
Lowest $40,757.91 $22,500.00 $45,000.00 $5,000.00
1st Quartile $70,203.12 $62,825.18 $90,000.00 $38,134.81
Median $92,299.83 $83,039.25 $130,000.00 $55,000.00
3rd Quartile $125,000.00 $111,475.61 $162,500.00 $80,803.17
Largest $265,034.87 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 173 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
$40,000.00 to $215,000.00, with $90,000.00 as the median amount. Only seven of these
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.
7 The rest of these cases resulting in damages after concession were either reflective of a proffer by
Respondent (1,632 cases) or stipulation (29 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.
8 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 v. Sec’y of Health & Human
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).
9 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
8

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 9 of 11
cases involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from
$250.00 to $1,500.00.10
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 six cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
VII. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s 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 his injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole to include the
medical records and affidavits filed and all assertions made by the parties in written
documents. I consider prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU
10 Additionally, a first-year future pain and suffering award of $10,000.00 was made in one case. Dhanoa
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018).
9

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 10 of 11
SIRVA cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, I base
my determination on the circumstances of this case.
Mr. Taylor suffered a relatively mild SIRVA, and the award should accordingly fall
below the median. His pain and suffering was at its most intense for approximately three
months, but by seven months post-vaccination his pain occurred mostly at night and he
was well enough to stop actively treating, although he continued to use medication for his
shoulder for over a year thereafter. His ROM restrictions were initially moderate, but
quickly improved with PT. He had one intramuscular steroid injection, which provided only
short-term relief. He attended 19 PT sessions in just over two months.
Of the cases cited by the parties, the most comparable to present facts are
Bordelon (with a pain and suffering award of $75,000.00) and Merwitz (with a pain and
suffering award of $50,000.00). The petitioners in those cases, like Mr. Taylor, each had
one steroid injection and attended similar amounts of PT. They had injuries of similar
duration, although Mr. Taylor continued taking medication for his shoulder for a year
longer, suggesting persistent residual symptoms that should be factored into the award.
Mr. Taylor was first seen for his injury 60 days after vaccination, which is much
later than the petitioner in Bordelon (15 days), but sooner than the petitioner in Merwitz
(91 days). The petitioner in Bordelon exhibited a slightly more severe injury, as evidenced
by her seeking treatment sooner and higher reported pain level of nine out of ten. Mr.
Taylor was still experiencing pain ranging from two to six out of ten when he was
discharged from PT, more significant than the Merwitz petitioner, whose pain ranged from
zero to two at discharge.
I find that Mr. Taylor’s injury falls between Merwitz and Bordelon, and Mr. Taylor
should therefore be awarded $65,000.00 for actual pain and suffering.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $65,000.00.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering. 11 I also find that Petitioner
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 & Human Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994))..
10

Case 1:20-vv-00508-UNJ Document 50 Filed 11/02/23 Page 11 of 11
is entitled to $1,449.05 in actual unreimbursable expenses.12
Based on consideration of the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I
award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $66,449.05, 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.13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12 The parties are in agreement as to damages for unreimbursable expenses. Br. at 1; Joint Status Report,
filed Oct. 2, 2023 (ECF No. 45).
13 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.
11