VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00936
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00936
Petitioner: Ijeoma Chukwudum
Filed: 2020-07-31
Decided: 2025-04-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-13
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 141097

AI-assisted case summary:
Ijeoma Chukwudum, a 37-year-old pharmacist, received an influenza vaccine on October 13, 2017. Within 48 hours, she developed left shoulder pain and limited range of motion, diagnosed as Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA). This case proceeded as a Table claim, with the court finding that Ms. Chukwudum established the necessary criteria, including onset within 48 hours of vaccination. The initial medical records did not immediately reflect the shoulder pain, as Ms. Chukwudum was initially managing her symptoms with self-care and the early medical encounters were for an unrelated acne condition. However, subsequent medical records and her own testimony consistently linked the onset of pain to the vaccination. The respondent contested the onset within the 48-hour window. After establishing entitlement, the case proceeded to damages. Ms. Chukwudum underwent extensive conservative treatment, including physical and occupational therapy, chiropractic sessions, and pain management programs, as well as three steroid injections. She ultimately underwent arthroscopic surgery in January 2019 for glenohumeral debridement and subacromial decompression. Her shoulder substantially recovered by mid-2019, approximately 20 months after vaccination, with full range of motion and strength. The court awarded Ms. Chukwudum $130,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $11,097.11 for past unreimbursed medical expenses, totaling $141,097.11. The claim for future pain and suffering and past lost earnings was denied due to insufficient evidence of ongoing impairment or properly calculated offsets, though the pain and suffering award was adjusted upwards to acknowledge work disruptions.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00936-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-22
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/17/2023) regarding 51 Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Decision. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0936V
IJEOMA CHUKWUDUM, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: October 17, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean Frank Greenwood, Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 31, 2020, Ijeoma Chukwudum 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 sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) due to an influenza (“flu”) vaccine which she received on
October 31, 2017. Petition (ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 2 of 11
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has put forth preponderant
evidence that the onset of her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours after the subject
vaccination – and that she has otherwise satisfied the criteria and requirements for a
Table SIRVA claim. She is thus entitled to compensation.
I. Relevant Procedural History
In March 2021, Petitioner completed her required filings approximately seven
months after the petition. Exs. 1 – 9, ECF No. 7; Exs. 10 – 18, ECF No. 12. In August
2021, the case was deemed to be sufficiently complete and assigned to the SPU. ECF
No. 16. Petitioner was later prompted to file any additional evidence of the onset of her
shoulder pain while the case awaited Respondent’s medical review. Scheduling Order,
ECF No. 23; see also Exs. 19 – 24, ECF No. 32.
Between July – December 2022, the parties discussed settlement but ultimately
reached an impasse. ECF Nos. 27, 34 – 39.3 On February 9, 2023, Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) Report opposing the Table SIRVA claim solely on the grounds that Petitioner
had not established the requisite onset. Rule 4(c) Report, ECF No. 41. Petitioner
thereafter filed additional evidence as Exs. 25 – 28, ECF Nos. 43, 45, followed by a brief
setting forth her position regarding onset. Motion for Decision filed June 12, 2023, ECF
No. 46 (hereinafter (“Brief”). Respondent filed his own brief on the onset question.
Response filed Aug. 11, 2023, ECF No. 48. A Reply was filed later that month, ECF No.
50, and the matter is ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Evidence
I have reviewed all of the evidence filed to date. I will only summarize or discuss
evidence that directly pertains to the determinations herein, as informed by the parties’
respective citations to the record and their arguments.
On October 13, 2017, Petitioner received the subject vaccine in her left deltoid at
her place of employment. Ex. 2 at 1. She was then 37 years old and employed as a
pharmacist, with no medical issues relevant to this claim’s resolution.
3 Petitioner has reported that her demand includes out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages. Status Report
filed Jan. 18, 2022, ECF No. 22. Petitioner had filed a workers’ compensation claim was resolved as of
June 2022. Status Report filed May 2, 2022, ECF No. 25. Petitioner represented that no Medicaid lien
existed in the case. Status Report filed Sept. 30, 2022, ECF No. 37.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 3 of 11
On November 6, 2017,4 Petitioner visited a medical assistant (“MA”) at a
dermatology practice for “follow up visit #5” regarding the prescription of the drug
isotretinoin to treat facial acne. Ex. 13 at 14 – 17. On December 4, 2017, Petitioner
attended “follow-up visit #6.” Id. at 10 – 13. The resulting medical records do not address
the vaccination or left shoulder pain.
On December 1, 2017, Petitioner notified her employer that she had “been having
left shoulder pain” since receiving the flu vaccine on October 13th. Ex. 15 at 42. The
employer recorded that an occupational health nurse would be managing Petitioner’s
case, all bills must be sent to Employer Solutions – Worklink, and all referrals must be
made within the Worklink network. Id. The employer also scheduled Petitioner for a
December 5, 2017, appointment at U.S. Healthworks.5 Id. at 43.
Upon presenting to U.S. Healthworks, Petitioner wrote on an intake form: “I
received the flu shot in my left arm on 10/13/2017. Since then, I have been having dull
pain on my arm. Last week it progressed to sharp radiating pain from my left arm to my
shoulder. Currently I have reduced range of motion of my left arm due to the pain.” Ex.
15 at 52.6
At U.S. Healthworks, John Bernard, P.A., recorded the same history and on exam,
documented left arm tenderness but full range of motion (“ROM”). Ex. 15 at 48. An X-ray
of the left shoulder was normal. Id. The PA diagnosed a contusion and injection site
reaction, for which he prescribed ibuprofen and metaxalone (a muscle relaxant) and
ordered physical therapy (“PT”) twice a week for two weeks. Id. at 49 – 50. The PA also
submitted a status report in connection with her workers’ compensation claim. Id. at 44.
On December 12, 2017, Petitioner saw her primary care provider (“PCP”) for an
annual evaluation, during which “no abnormal aches or pains” were noted. Ex. 13 at 11.
At the December 13, 2017, PT initial evaluation, Petitioner reported that her left
shoulder pain began “after receiving the flu vaccination” on October 13, 2017. Ex. 4 at 9.
An exam documented moderately restricted ROM and diminished strength. Id. at 9 – 10.
4 Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and subsequent briefing inadvertently state that the first post-vaccination
dermatology encounter was on November 16, 2017.
5 Respondent refers to this facility as Concerta or Concentra Urgent Care. See generally Rule 4(c) Report
and Response. That name appears on the certification form. Ex. 15 at 1. However, each medical encounter
record bears a U.S. Healthworks logo. See generally Ex. 15.
6 This is repeated verbatim in a computerized, undated “workplace incident report.” Ex. 3 at 1.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 4 of 11
She attended a total of four formal PT sessions that month, during which she was also
instructed on a home exercise program (“PT”). See generally Ex. 4.7, 8
On January 4, 2018, Petitioner returned to the same dermatology MA for another
follow-up on her acne. Ex. 13 at 6 – 9. The MA recorded: “Pt [Petitioner] is having muscle
ache after a flu shot that was done in October. Pt [Petitioner] will d/c [discontinue]
isotretinoin and see if coming off will make a difference.” Id. at 8.9 The medical records
do not include any physical exam, assessment, treatment plan, or any other details
regarding the “muscle ache” and/or the left shoulder, however.
In January 2018, the PA recorded that Petitioner’s injury was worse despite the
course of PT and previously prescribed pain medications. He newly prescribed Mobic (a
muscle relaxant) on January 11, 2018, and Ultracet (acetaminophen with tramadol) on
January 22, 2018. Ex. 15 at 6 – 19.10
At a January 29, 2018, initial evaluation, orthopedist Gerard T. Gabel, M.D.
recorded that Petitioner “got a flu shot back in October and started having pain, obviously
with the shot, but it never settled down and has persisted.” Ex. 6 at 40. Dr. Gabel
assessed “post-flu injection with left frozen shoulder and left subacromial impingement,”
for which he injected cortisone to the subacromial space and glenohumeral joint. Id. Dr.
Gabel also conferred with an occupational health nurse about Petitioner’s case. Id.
On February 5, 2018, Petitioner returned to her dermatologist for another follow-
up on her acne – but the ongoing left shoulder injury was not noted. Ex. 13 at 2 – 5.
At a February 12, 2018, occupational therapy (“OT”) initial evaluation, Petitioner
reported a similar history of receiving the flu vaccination on October 13, 2017. Ex. 7 at 9.
She “initially noted pain at the time of the injection that became progressively worse over
the next month.” Id. She had restricted ROM on exam. Id. at 9 – 10.
7 Petitioner’s last PT session was December 22, 2017, but she was formally discharged from PT due to
“failure to return” and “home program” on April 6, 2018. Ex. 4 at 12.
8 Petitioner also saw PA Bernard on December 14 and 28, 2017. Ex. 15 at 20 – 39. Those records have
been reviewed – but they do not particularly include additional information pertinent to the disputed onset
issue or to my entitlement determination more generally (although they may be relevant to damages).
9 Isotretinoin is a medication for the treatment of acne, which the dermatologist had prescribed beginning
in June 2017. Ex. 13 at 35.
10 The PA also recommended an MRI, Ex. 15 at 19, which was not obtained for several months.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 5 of 11
In mid-February 2018, Petitioner followed up with Dr. Gabel. Ex. 6 at 36 – 39. She
also mentioned “wanting a second opinion” regarding her left shoulder injury, upon seeing
her PCP for an unrelated concern. Ex. 11 at 5 – 6.11
On February 26, 2018, Petitioner presented to a second orthopedist, Wayne O
Alani, M.D. Ex. 8 at 1. He obtained an MRI which revealed a high-grade partial thickness
tear of the supraspinatus; moderate to severe impingement of the subacromial space;
and mild to moderate tendinitis of the long head of the biceps. Ex. 8 at 1, 3. Based on the
MRI findings and his evaluation, Dr. Alani recommended surgical intervention. Id. at 2.12
On March 5, 2018, Petitioner returned to her original orthopedist Dr. Gabel. Ex. 6
at 34 – 37. He obtained a fluoroscopy-guided arthrogram and MRI, which revealed mild
supraspinatus tendinopathy, and mild degenerative change of the superior labrum. Id. at
49 – 50. On April 2, 2018, Dr. Gabel injected cortisone to the subacromial space and
glenohumeral joint and recommended further OT. Id. at 32.13
April 25, 2018, marked Petitioner’s 13th and last OT session, at which she had
improved ROM but continued pain. Ex. 7 at 44 – 45. In a record from a few days later, Dr.
Gabel recorded that the most recent cortisone injection had helped, and that Petitioner
should continue exercises concentrating on range of motion, which “she can do… on her
own.” Ex. 6 at 30.
In May 2018, Petitioner attended fourteen (14) sessions of chiropractic treatment
for her left shoulder injury. See generally Ex. 14. That same month she saw a third
orthopedist, Pradeep Kodali, M.D., for her left shoulder injury. Ex. 9 at 16. Dr. Kodali
assessed adhesive capsulitis, for which he recommended surgical intervention. Id. at 17.
At a May 14, 2018, initial consultation, occupational medicine and pain
management specialist Ahmed A. Khalifa, M.D., recommended surgical intervention for
Petitioner’s left shoulder injury. Ex. 5 at 23. Petitioner declined surgery in favor of a pain
management program consisting of twenty (20) sessions ending on July 10, 2018, and
six “aftercare” sessions ending on July 31, 2018. See generally Ex. 5.
11 The PCP recorded a referral to a Dr. Rogers. Ex. 11 at 6. However, no records from any such provider
have been filed, and Petitioner states that she instead saw the orthopedist Dr. Alani. Ex. 1 (Petitioner’s
Affidavit) at ¶ 15; accord Petitioner’s Status Report filed Aug. 25, 2023, at ECF No. 49.
12 There are no further records of treatment with Dr. Alani.
13 Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and subsequent briefing inadvertently state that this MRI was obtained
in March 2019.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 6 of 11
On September 19, 2018, Dr. Gabel recorded that Petitioner’s shoulder ROM had
improved, but she had persistent impingement and pain, for which further injections would
not necessarily be helpful. Ex. 6 at 26. Petitioner would consider whether her pain was
severe enough to warrant surgical intervention. Id.
On October 10, 2018, Petitioner reported that she was following a home exercise
program, but she had ongoing soreness, for which Dr. Gabel prescribed Medrol. Id. at 24.
On November 5, 2018, Petitioner returned to Dr. Kodali, who prescribed
Meloxicam, and again recommended surgical intervention. Ex. 9 at 13 – 14. Two days
later, she again saw Dr. Gabel, who also recommended surgical intervention. Ex. 6 at 21
– 23. Petitioner’s employer initially declined to cover the surgery, but Dr. Gabel requested
reconsideration. See Ex. 5 at 13 – 14; Ex. 6 at 18 – 22. On January 7, 2019, Dr. Gabel
performed an arthroscopic glenohumeral debridement and subacromial decompression.
Ex. 17 at 53 – 54.14
From January 28 – March 21, 2019, Petitioner underwent twelve (12) sessions of
post-operative PT. See generally Ex. 18. She also followed up post-operatively with Dr.
Gabel. Ex. 6 at 3 – 13. He injected cortisone to the left subacromial space on February
18, 2019. Id. at 11. On June 20, 2019, Dr. Gabel recorded that Petitioner had full ROM,
essentially negative impingement, and good strength. Id. at 3. She had no ongoing
restrictions but would use good judgment. She was at maximum medical improvement
(“MMI”) and should contact Dr. Gabel “if anything flare[d] up.” Id.
On October 23, 2019, Petitioner underwent an annual wellness examination, which
did not document any complaints pertaining to her shoulder and noted full ROM and
strength on exam. Ex. 16 at 14.
After a lengthy treatment gap, on February 22, 2022, Petitioner returned to Dr.
Gabel, who recorded: “She has had a little bit of pain from time to time, but over the last
couple of months it has been more sore. She has not had any interval management. She
has tried some anti-inflammatories with a partial response.” Ex. 9 at 2. Dr. Gabel’s exam
found “good motion” but positive Hawkins and Neer’s tests. Id. He assessed recurrent
inflammation of the left shoulder, for which he offered another injection, which was
deferred by Petitioner. Id. He prescribed Medrol and meloxicam and recommended light
activity. Id. He also referred Petitioner to a therapist and told her to follow up in one month
– but no further treatment records have been filed.
14 While not pertinent to the disputed onset issue or to my entitlement determination more generally, it is
unclear whether the surgery was ultimately authorized as part of Petitioner’s workers’ compensation
claim, paid for via separate insurance, or paid for out-of-pocket.
6

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 7 of 11
In her July 2020 affidavit, Petitioner recalls that she felt distinct pain upon receiving
the subject flu vaccination. Ex. 1 at ¶ 3. She tried taking Tylenol and ibuprofen, and
different home remedies including heat therapy, Bengay, and a topical analgesic heat
rub: “all to no avail before I eventually reported the pain to my employer.” Id.
In May 2023, her husband recalled that beginning on the date of vaccination,
Petitioner experienced severe pain in her arm, much worse than the mild soreness
associated with getting a vaccine. Ex. 25 at ¶ 2. Petitioner used her experience as a
pharmacist to try simple remedies to reduce the pain, but over the next two days, she
complained that the pain has escalated. Id. A friend also recalled Petitioner complaining
of severe pain beginning one day after the vaccination and telling Petitioner to seek
medical attention two weeks into the course. Ex. 26 at ¶ 2.15
III. 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.
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.
15 The husband and friend’s initial declarations both inadvertently stated a vaccination date of October 16,
2017. Exs. 25 – 26. The husband and friend each subsequently declared that the vaccination date was
indeed October 13, 2017, and that the remainder of their testimony was unaffected by that typographical
error. Exs. 27 – 28. All declarations at Exs. 25 – 28 are signed under penalty of perjury in accordance with
28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. In July 2022, Petitioner filed another friend’s statement as Ex. 20 – but it is undated,
and neither notarized nor sworn under penalty of perjury and thus warrants much less, if any, consideration.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 8 of 11
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,16 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 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;
16 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).
8

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 9 of 11
(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
In opposing compensation, Respondent argues only that Petitioner has not
established the onset of left shoulder pain within 48 hours after the administration of the
flu vaccine on October 13, 2017. Rule 4(c) Report at 9 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a),
(c)(10)(ii)).
Respondent emphasizes the first two medical encounters, which lack
documentation of shoulder pain. Rule 4(c) Report at 9. But those encounters were
periodic follow-ups focusing on a prescription medication for facial acne – not an obvious
context in which Petitioner would be expected to request treatment for an unrelated issue.
A subsequent dermatology record is in fact corroborative of the alleged injury,
since it memorializes the proposal that Petitioner would discontinue the acne medication
in an effort to alleviate her “muscle ache [present] after a flu shot that was done in
October.” That is consistent with Petitioner’s explanation that she reported her shoulder
injury when she believed it to be relevant. Reply at 4. And even that record lacks any
pertinent exam or assessment – confirming that the MA was focused on her separate and
unrelated area of specialty.
Respondent also argues that the initial two-month treatment delay has “no
explanation.” Response at 9. But Petitioner explains that she used her personal medical
knowledge and training while initially attempting to self-manage her injury. Brief at 3. She
then sought recourse with her employer – which had required the subject vaccination,
and subsequently assumed management of her medical care, and at least some of the
expenses thereof, in the context of her worker’s compensation claim. And once Petitioner
9

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 10 of 11
received medical attention, various providers recorded her consistent history17 of
shoulder pain persisting “since” or “after” the vaccination. Certain records are even more
specific, such as the OT initial evaluation, which provides that Petitioner “initially noted
pain at the time of the injection that became progressively worse over the next month.”
Ex. 7 at 9 (emphasis added). There is also no evidence that Petitioner’s shoulder pain
began at any time after 48 hours of vaccination. Thus, Petitioner has established onset
within the Table timeframe.
Respondent does not dispute any other Table SIRVA requirements, and 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 a prior or current condition or abnormality which would explain Petitioner’s
condition or pain and limited range of motion (“ROM”) other than in Petitioner’s injured
left shoulder. Thus, all elements of a Table SIRVA claim have been preponderantly
established.
C. Other Requirements for Entitlement
All elements of a Table SIRVA claim have been preponderantly established.
Accordingly, Petitioner need not prove causation-in-fact. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However,
she must satisfy the other requirements of Section 11(c) regarding the injury’s severity,
the vaccination received, 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 them.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement
and is thus entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA.
Thus, the case will now proceed to the damages phase. The parties are
encouraged to revisit their previous discussions and endeavor to agree on an appropriate
award of compensation.
17 Although these entries were based upon information provided by Petitioner, they still should be afforded
greater weight than more current representations, as they were uttered contemporaneously with Petitioner’s
injury for the purposes of obtaining medical care. The Federal Circuit has stated that “[m]edical records, in
general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence . . . [as they] contain information supplied to or by
health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528
(emphasis added). Thus, the Circuit has instructed that greater weight should be accorded to this
information even when it is provided by Petitioner.
10

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 52 Filed 11/22/23 Page 11 of 11
By no later than Friday, December 15, 2023, Petitioner shall file a joint status
report updating on the parties’ efforts towards an informal resolution of damages.
If the parties have determined that informal resolution of damages is not possible,
they shall jointly propose a briefing schedule. Any such briefing shall include
comparison to prior reasoned opinions addressing the appropriate award for pain
and suffering for Table SIRVA claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00936-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-22
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/17/2025) regarding 68 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0936V
IJEOMA CHUKWUDUM, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: March 17, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Sean Frank Greenwood, Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 31, 2020, Ijeoma Chukwudum 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 sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) due to an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 13, 2017.
Petition (ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
I previously concluded that Petitioner had preponderantly established the onset of
shoulder pain within 48 hours after vaccination, and all other criteria and requirements for
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-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 2 of 10
a Table SIRVA claim, and she was thus entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement
(ECF No. 51), available at Chukwudum v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-936V,
2023 WL 8112957 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 17, 2023). That decision – including the
summary of the previous procedural history, and the evidence – is fully incorporated and
relied upon herein especially because the parties have declined to submit any additional
evidence, although they did brief the unresolved damages components. Damages Brief
filed Dec. 12, 2024 (ECF No. 64); Response filed. 3, 2025 (ECF No. 66); Reply filed Feb.
17, 2025 (ECF No. 67). The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
For the following reasons, I find that Petitioner is entitled to $130,000.00 for
her past pain and suffering, and stipulated past medical expenses – but no award of
future pain and suffering, past lost earnings, or housecleaning costs.
I. Pain and Suffering
A. Authority
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining SIRVA damages, taking into account prior compensation
determinations within SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in
Sections I and II of Timberlake v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1905V, 2025 WL
721730 at *1 – 3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 19, 2025).
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.3
B. 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 her
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
3 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)).
2

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 3 of 10
Petitioner’s injury.
I have reviewed the record as a whole to include the medical records, declarations,
affidavits, and all other filed evidence, plus the parties’ briefs and other pleadings. I
consider prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases and
rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, I base my determination on
the circumstances of this case.
The record establishes that as of October 13, 2017, Petitioner was 37 years old,
healthy, and raising three children (approximately 10, 6, and 4 years old) with her
husband. Ex. 5 at 50 – 51; Ex. 1 at ¶ 51. She was employed as a pharmacist and received
the at-issue vaccination in her left arm, while at work. Ex. 2 at 1.
Overall, Petitioner’s SIRVA was moderately severe. It was not documented at two
dermatology appointments on November 6 and December 1, 2017. Ex. 13 at 10 – 17. But
I previously concluded that those were “not an obvious context” for reporting a shoulder
injury. Chukwudum, 2023 WL 8112957 at *6. And a later dermatology appointment
referenced shoulder pain, but omitted any exam or assessment thereof – confirming that
the provider was focused on her separate and unrelated area of specialty. Id. Thus, the
dermatology encounters do not particularly impact the damages determination.
Petitioner’s shoulder injury was documented 49 days post-vaccination, on
December 1, 2017, through a complaint to her employer. Ex. 15 at 42. The employer
advised that it would manage the medical evaluation of the injury – and the resulting
costs. Id. The employer arranged an appointment with a physician’s assistant (“PA”)
which took place four days later and resulted in prescriptions for ibuprofen and
metaxalone, but the maintenance of Petitioner’s regular duties as a pharmacist. Id. at 43
– 44, 48 – 52. Those medications and four physical therapy (“PT”) sessions later in
December 2017 (see generally Ex. 4) were not associated with improvement, however.
By January 2018, Petitioner’s shoulder injury had worsened, prompting initial
evaluation with an orthopedist (affiliated with her employer); a shift to “light” work duties,
with no overhead lifting and weightbearing restrictions; several additional oral pain
medications, including a Medrol steroid dose pack; and a steroid injection. See generally
Ex. 15 at 16 – 19; Ex. 6 at 36 - 40. In February 2018, she started occupational therapy
(“OT”), Ex. 7 at 9 – 10, and MRIs of the shoulder suggested supraspinatus tearing;
subacromial impingement; biceps tendinitis; supraspinatus tendinopathy; and
degenerative changes of the superior labrum. Ex. 8 at 3; Ex. 6 at 49 – 50.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 4 of 10
In spring 2018, Petitioner consulted a second and a third orthopedist (not affiliated
with her employer) who each endorsed surgical intervention. Ex. 8 at 1 – 2; Ex. 9 at 16 –
17. In contrast, her original orthopedist (affiliated with her employer) hoped that
Petitioner’s injury would heal with conservative treatment, including administration of a
second steroid injection on April 2, 2018. See generally Ex. 6 at 30 – 37.
On April 9, 2018, during her ninth (9th) OT session, Petitioner reported that her
shoulder was feeling better since the injection. Ex. 7 at 33. On April 18, 2018, during her
11th OT session and reevaluation, she reported that the injection was wearing off and her
pain was becoming more significant, and the therapist concurred that her shoulder
remained “severely impaired.” Id. at 49 – 50. After two more OT sessions in April 2018,
Petitioner did not return and was administratively discharged. Id. at 44 – 46, 51 – 53. S
In May 2018, Petitioner attended fourteen (14) chiropractic sessions. Ex. 14 at 5 –
11. She also started seeing a pain management specialist (also affiliated with her
employer). Ex. 5 at 21 – 24, 43 – 55. Upon starting an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation
program (featuring mobilization, strengthening, and behavior modification) on June 11,
2018, Petitioner’s pain ranged from 0 – 10/10. Id. at 26. She had “Decreased AROM in
her L shoulder: flexion 100-A [active], 115-P [passive]; abduction 40-A, 50-P; extension
10; IR 45; ER 10 (pain with all ranges and compensatory movements.” Id. After twenty
(20) full days in this program, in mid-July 2018, she displayed improvements and was
cleared to return to work without restrictions. Id. at 6. After six more “after-care” sessions,
by July 31, 2018, her pain had decreased to 2 – 6/10. Id. at 26. She had: “Increased
AROM in her shoulder: flexion 140-A, 150-P; abduction 110-A, 120-P; extension 45; IR
45; ER 40 (pain at end range and compensatory movements with abduction, IR, and IR.”
Id. Petitioner was instructed to continue a home exercise program, and was referred back
to her orthopedist for reevaluation. Id. at 27.
In September 2018, the orthopedist assessed Petitioner’s shoulder as having
“improved,” but still featuring “persistent” pain and impingement. Ex. 6 at 26. The treater
discussed the option of a surgical “decompression and cuff debridement [which] would
reduce, but not get rid of the pain entirely.” Id.
By November 2018, Petitioner’s continued home exercises and another Medrol
dose pack had not cured her shoulder pain, which had persisted for over a year and still
interfered with her quality of life and sleep. Id. at 21. She opted for surgery, with an
expected recovery time of four months, and expected improvement of her condition by
“75 – 80%.” Ex. 6 at 21 – 22.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 5 of 10
In January 2019, the orthopedist performed arthroscopic surgery – specifically,
glenohumeral debridement and subacromial decompression. Ex. 17 at 53 – 54. She
subsequently attended 12 post-operative PT sessions in January – March 2019, see
generally Ex. 18, which were punctuated by her orthopedist’s administration of another
steroid injection “to help quiet the inflammation to facilitate the therapy,” and
recommendation to “add a little rotator cuff strengthening.” Ex. 6 at 11. Through home
exercises, she achieved “full” ROM and “minima[l] tender[ness]” by April 2019; was
released from weightbearing restrictions in May 2019; and was assessed to be at
maximum medical improvement (“MMI”) as of June 20, 2019. Id. at 3, 5, 7. In
recommending ongoing “conditioning” exercises, the orthopedist wrote: “[T]he
maintenance of good strength and minimization of load with good body mechanics is
critical, and although she is young, and maybe even especially because she is young,
she needs to be attentive to this forever.” Id. at 5.
In February 2022, after a 32-month gap in evaluation or treatment of her left
shoulder,4 Petitioner returned to her orthopedist, who recorded: “She has had a little bit
of pain from time to time, but over the last couple of months it has been more sore. She
has not had any interval management. She has tried some anti-inflammatories with a
partial response.” Ex. 19 at 2. A physical examination found “good motion,” but positive
Hawkins and Neer’s tests. Id. The orthopedist assessed that Petitioner was dealing with
“some recurrent inflammation.” Id. Petitioner received prescriptions for Medrol and
Meloxicam, and agreed to “keeping activities light, hopefully nothing more than 5 pounds.”
Id. She declined a steroid injection or additional formal therapy, and she did not follow up
with the orthopedist. Id. There are no further treatment records, or other information
particularly helpful to assessing Petitioner’s ongoing condition.5
The above evidence establishes that after her October 2017 vaccination, Petitioner
suffered a moderately severe SIRVA for approximately 20 months. After an initial 49-day
treatment delay (with two intervening medical encounters for unrelated issues), her injury
was documented consistently, and it featured varying pain ratings; moderately restricted
ROM; consultations with three different orthopedists; two MRIs; various oral pain
medications; three steroid injections; 16 PT sessions; 11 OT sessions; 14 chiropractic
4 Excluding an October 2019 primary care annual exam record, which states in the Review of Systems “L
shoulder pain (improving).” Ex. 16 at 14. But this record misspells the orthopedist’s name, indicates that a
physical exam found full range of motion and full strength in the upper extremities, and did include any
relevant assessment or treatment. Id. at 14 – 15. Accordingly, the record has little probative value in
understanding Petitioner’s shoulder’s condition after June 2019.
5 Petitioner’s only affidavit was prepared in July 2020. Ex. 1. Her husband also submitted an affidavit
(primarily to bolster her onset showing), which only briefly attests that Petitioner’s pain and suffering
“continu[ed]” up to May 2023. Ex. 25.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 6 of 10
sessions; an intensive pain management program; and arthroscopic surgery. The injury
also disrupted her work as pharmacist, and care of her three children. However, the
evidence also establishes that Petitioner’s shoulder had substantially recovered by 20
months post-vaccination, at which point she had full ROM and strength and was able to
return to her full work duties.
I recognize the orthopedist’s opinion that Petitioner’s shoulder might not be fully
healed after surgery, and that she should work to maintain her strength and stability – but
there is insufficient evidence of Petitioner adhering to such an exercise program or
suffering any cognizable residual effects beyond mid-2019, as evidenced by the dearth
of further medical records. Accordingly, the pain and suffering award will not include a
future component despite Petitioner’s urging, see Damages Brief at 3, 13 (requesting
$30,000.00 for future pain and suffering); Response at 18 (opposing any future award).
There is simply insufficient objective evidence of an ongoing/permanent deficit.
For her past pain and suffering, Petitioner requests an award of $140,000.00, and
Respondent counters with $97,500.00. Respondent’s approach is not appropriate, for
several reasons. First, he states: “The Court has awarded $91,000.00 - $110,000.00 in
cases involving severe [SIRVAs], usually requiring surgeries, but pain is not always
immediately reported.” Response at 13 (emphasis added). But he did not cite, nor did I
independently identify, any cases at the low end of that spectrum. Instead, the lowest
SIRVA surgery cases featured past pain and suffering awards of $95,000.00 each. And
such low awards were for specific reasons not replicated here – such as a five-month
initial treatment delay followed by another three-month gap in Shelton, 2021 WL 2550093,
at *7, and the “periods of little to no pain – as evidenced by some gaps in treatment” in
Shields, 2024 WL 5261893, at *11 (citing favorably to Hunt, 2022 WL 2826662, at *8 –
9).6 Ms. Chukwudum’s documented injury and treatment thereof was much more
consistent, thus warranting a higher award.
More interesting is Respondent’s acknowledgment of Davidson, which involved a
treatment delay of six weeks (compared to seven weeks and two intervening encounters
in this case). Response at 14.7 This case had a shorter treatment course (20 months,
compared to 30 months in Davidson) but it involved higher pain ratings and restrictions
of motion, additional imaging and specialist evaluations, more continuous treatment (with
6 Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-279V, 2021 WL 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21,
2021) (awarding $97,500.00 for past pain and suffering); Shields v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
1970V, 2024 WL 5261893 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 26, 2024) ($95,000.00); Hunt v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2022) ($95,000.00).
7 Davidson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1617V, 2024 WL 1152539 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb.
8, 2024) ($110,000.00).
6

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 7 of 10
less relief from steroid injections, and Petitioner attempting various therapies and an
intensive pain management program), and more post-operative PT sessions. Davidson,
2024 WL 11152539, at *4; see also Brief at 6 citing Reed, 2019 WL 1222925, at *15
(noting treatment by a pain management specialist).8
Also instructive is Petitioner’s citation to Nute, Brief at 9 – 10,9 in which an injured
party experienced several cortisone injections, 19 PT sessions, arthroscopic surgery
featuring subacromial decompression and debridement, as well as impaired functioning
with hands-on job tasks (nursing in Nute, pharmacology in this case). Nute featured a
somewhat shorter initial treatment delay of 37 days, but a much shorter treatment course
of eleven months, compared to the 20 months here. 2019 WL 6125008, at *11 – 12. And
Respondent has not explained why a degenerative labral tear dictates a lower award for
Petitioner’s SIRVA. Response at 14; but see, e.g., Ex. 6 at 24, 28, 32; Ex. 17 at 53
(orthopedist’s characterization of only “minimal” fraying and tendinosis). Like in Nute, her
surgical intervention primarily comprised of glenohumeral debridement and subacromial
decompression.
And again, this case involves very consistent documentation and treatment efforts
for the injury (even in the face of Petitioner’s employer placing roadblocks in the way of
surgical intervention). For the above reasons, plus some recognition of her work
disruptions (as discussed further below), I find Ms. Chukwudum is entitled to a past pain
and suffering award of $130,000.00.
II. Past Lost Earnings
The Vaccine Act provides for recovery of “actual and anticipated loss of earnings”
for a vaccinee whose “earning capacity is or has been impaired by reason of such
person's vaccine-related injury.” Section 15(a)(3)(A). But any such award must avoid
duplicating for any payment that has been made or can be reasonably expected to be
made, “under any State compensation program, under an insurance policy, or under any
Federal, or State health benefits program (other than under Title XIX of the Social Security
Act”). Section 15(g).
A lost earnings award must also reflect tax deductions that would have occurred.
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523 (1983) (citing Norfolk & Western R.
Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490 (1980); see e.g., L.J. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
8 Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1,
2019) ($160,000.00).
9 Nute v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-140V, 2019 WL 6125008 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 6,
2019).
7

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 8 of 10
17-959V, 2023 WL 2137946, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 20, 2023) (in which the
parties stipulated that the appropriate offsets for taxes reduced a past lost earnings award
from $9,223.80 to $5,681.50).
Lost earnings calculations must be performed ‘in accordance with generally
recognized principles and projections,” Section 15(a)(3)(A), and “in a cautious manner.”
Brown v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 00-182V, 2005 WL 2659073, at *6 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2005). Indeed, the Court of Federal Claims recently cautioned that
“the determination of compensation for lost earnings ‘in accordance with generally
recognized actuarial principles and projections’ [will] likely require expert opinion
evidence.’” Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 147 Fed. Cl. 131, 139 (2020).
Here, Ms. Chukwudum requests $11,568.16 in past lost wages. Brief at 12. The
evidence reflects that her SIRVA did not result in unemployment, but somewhat impaired
her ability to work as a pharmacist. Ex. 1 at ¶ 8 (explaining that her job required “frequen[t]
standing, moving, and bending for prolonged period of time”); Ex. 15 at 33 (reflecting a
December 2017 shift to “light duty”); Ex. 21 at 6 (July 2018 return to full work duty); Ex. 6
at 5, 7 (indicating additional work restrictions following the January 2019 surgery).
Petitioner typically worked 80 hours in each two-week pay period, at a rate of
$48.50 per hour (sometimes with overtime, at a higher hourly rate). Ex. 21 at 30 – 40 (pay
stubs from June – December 2017). But she reduced her hours, coinciding with periods
of acute pain and treatment for her SIRVA. See, e.g., Ex. 21 at 24 and Ex. 24 at 1
(reflecting a February 18 – March 3, 2018, pay period with 20.25 hours missed); accord
Ex. 6 at 36, 38; Ex. 7 at 9 – 10; Ex. 8 at 1 – 3 (orthopedics and therapy records from that
period). Additionally, she was excused from work, and paid at a “SafetyNet” reduced
hourly rate of $41.23 per hour for twelve weeks of post-surgical recovery. Ex. 21 at 7 –
12; Ex. 24 at 1 – 2 (January - March 2019 pay periods); accord Ex. Ex. 6 at 3 – 11; 17 at
53 – 54; Ex. 18 (corresponding medical records). Importantly, there is no apparent
alternative explanation for Petitioner’s reduced earnings throughout this period.
Thus, Petitioner had made some showing of lost earnings – but at the same time,
Respondent reasonably questions whether all necessary offsets have been applied.
Response at 17. Petitioner only replies that she has “carefully documented, calculated,
and checked [the lost earnings claim] or any potential offsets.” Reply at 6. But it is unclear
whether her workers’ compensation coverage was state-supported or entirely privately
funded. See, e.g., Ex. 23 at 4 (“Texas Workers’ Compensation Work Status Report”). And
she only calculated “wages missed,” Ex. 24 at 1 – 2, without any likely tax deductions.
For those reasons, Petitioner’s lost earnings claim is inadequately developed and will be
denied. However, in the interests of accomplishing “rough justice” and closing out this
8

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 9 of 10
case (which has been pending for nearly five years), the above past pain and suffering
award includes recognition of her work disruptions, and has been adjusted upwards
accordingly.
III. Past Unreimbursed Expenses
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). But I have
previously declined to award the costs of home cleaning, recognized as a “typical” home
maintenance cost, when an individual “has not adequately demonstrated that he [or she]
can no longer do any typical tasks associated with cleaning except that it may take longer
to complete, or that the circumstances justify a special allowance for this sum.” Grant v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1262V, 2024 WL 940275, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 9, 2024) (denying home cleaning costs, despite awarding lawn service costs
that “more directly implicate[d] the limitations” placed on an individual dealing with
residual effects of Guillain-Barré syndrome, as endorsed by the Respondent’s expert).
Ms. Chukwudum’s damages briefing claims ongoing “struggles with essential
cleaning because of the inability for anything higher than chest level and cannot carry or
hold moderately heavy objects (similar to her work accommodations preventing the
same).” She requests reimbursement for home cleaning costs of $60.00 per week for 309
weeks (dating from her January 2019 surgery to her December 2024 opening brief) for a
total of $18,540.00. Brief at 13. She did not submit any documentation of actually incurring
those costs, as required under Section 15(a)(1)(B)(ii). I also agree with Respondent that
there is not evidence of an ongoing injury that would uniquely justify ongoing
housecleaning costs. Response at 18 (citing Ex. 6 at 14), compare Grant, 2024 WL
940275, at *7. Accordingly, those requested costs are denied.
Conclusion
For all the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the entire
record, Petitioner is entitled to damages in the form of $141,097.11 (representing
$130,000.00 for past pain and suffering, and $11,097.11 for past unreimbursed
medical expenses10) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s
10 The parties stipulated to the past unreimbursable medical expenses. Brief at 13; Response at 2; see also
Ex. 22 (supporting documentation).
9

Case 1:20-vv-00936-UNJ Document 72 Filed 04/22/25 Page 10 of 10
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11 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.
10