VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00960
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00960
Petitioner: Tracy Sprinkle
Filed: 2020-08-03
Decided: 2024-09-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-29
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 106790

AI-assisted case summary:
On August 3, 2020, Tracy Sprinkle filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on September 29, 2019, caused a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Ms. Sprinkle, a 60-year-old health insurance customer service representative, received the vaccine in her right shoulder. Her past medical history was unremarkable for shoulder issues. Within 16 days of vaccination, she presented to an orthopedist with severe right shoulder pain, limited range of motion, and difficulty sleeping, rating her pain at 8-9/10. She received a corticosteroid injection, which provided only temporary relief. A second injection was administered the following month, but she continued to experience pain and limitations. An MRI revealed a full thickness tear of the posterior supraspinatus tendon footprint, tendinosis, and bursitis. Following a diagnosis of rotator cuff tear and subacromial bursitis, Ms. Sprinkle underwent arthroscopic surgery on February 19, 2020, which included bursal debridement, acromioplasty, and rotator cuff repair. She began physical therapy on March 12, 2020, and was discharged from therapy by May 13, 2020, after completing 10 sessions. By May 8, 2020, she reported essentially zero pain. By June 19, 2020, she reported being close to full use of her shoulder with some minor restrictions. The case proceeded as a Table claim. On February 3, 2023, the Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report, stating that they did not contest entitlement, agreeing that the injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that Petitioner had satisfied the legal prerequisites for compensation. On February 6, 2023, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement in favor of Petitioner. As the parties could not agree on damages, the matter was briefed for adjudication. On September 25, 2024, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision awarding compensation. Petitioner sought $115,000.00 for past pain and suffering, citing comparable cases with awards ranging from $110,000.00 to $115,000.00. Respondent argued that Petitioner's SIRVA was mild to moderate, with a relatively short treatment course and full pain relief achieved within two months of physical therapy post-surgery. After considering the arguments, prior case law, and the record, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Ms. Sprinkle $105,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,790.88 for unreimbursable medical expenses, for a total award of $106,790.88. The award was a lump sum payment.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Tracy Sprinkle, age 60, filed a petition alleging a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on September 29, 2019. The injury was alleged to be consistent with the Vaccine Injury Table. Respondent did not contest entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner met the statutory requirements for compensation, including no prior shoulder issues, pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination, pain limited to the shoulder, and no other identified cause for the pain, with sequelae lasting more than six months. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on February 6, 2023. Damages were subsequently determined, with Petitioner seeking $115,000 for pain and suffering and Respondent arguing for a lower award due to a mild to moderate injury and a shorter treatment course compared to cited cases. On September 25, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Petitioner $105,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,790.88 for unreimbursable medical expenses, totaling $106,790.88. Petitioner was represented by Maximillian J. Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP, and Respondent was represented by Zoe Wade of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over the case.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00960-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-18
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/12/2022 ) regarding 25 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-960V
UNPUBLISHED
TRACY SPRINKLE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 12, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
HUMAN SERVICES, Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FACT RULING1
On August 3, 2020, Tracy Sprinkle 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on
September 29, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons detailed herein, I find Petitioner likely received the subject flu
vaccination in her right arm.
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-00960-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 5
I. Relevant Procedural History
A year after the claim’s initiation, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report challenging
compensation because (among other things) Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she
received the relevant vaccination in her right arm because the vaccination record
indicates the left arm. ECF No. 18 at 3-4. On July 1, 2022, Petitioner filed her Motion for
a Factual Ruling. ECF No. 22. Petitioner asserted that the evidentiary record
demonstrates she received the September 29, 2019 flu vaccine in her right arm, thereafter
suffering a right SIRVA. Id. at 1. However, Respondent maintained that the
“contemporaneous vaccination record preponderantly demonstrates that the influenza
(“flu”) vaccine was administered to petitioner’s left deltoid,” outweighing later testimony.
No. 23 at 2. Petitioner filed a Reply on August 16, 2022, submitting that the “majority of
the evidence,” not just testimony, indicates Petitioner’s flu vaccination in her right
shoulder. ECF No. 24 at 1.
The matter is ripe for adjudication.
II. 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 her 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 & Human 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). Medical records created contemporaneously with
the events they describe are generally considered to be more trustworthy. Cucuras v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993); but see Kirby v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.3d 1378, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (clarifying that
Cucuras does not stand for proposition that medical records are presumptively accurate
and complete). While not presumed to be complete and accurate, medical records made
while seeking treatment are generally afforded more weight than statements made by
petitioner after-the-fact. See Gerami v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-442V,
2013 WL 5998109, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 11, 2013) (finding that
contemporaneously documented medical evidence was more persuasive than the letter
2

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 5
prepared for litigation purposes), mot. for rev. denied, 127 Fed. Cl. 299 (2014). Indeed,
“where later testimony conflicts with earlier contemporaneous documents, courts
generally give the contemporaneous documentation more weight.” Campbell ex rel.
Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779 (2006); see United
States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 396 (1948).
III. Factual Findings
At issue is whether Petitioner’s September 29, 2019 vaccination was administered
in her right or left arm. After a review of the entire record, including Respondent’s Rule 4
Report and the parties’ briefs, I find that Petitioner most likely received the vaccination in
her right arm, as alleged.3 Specifically, I note the following:
• On September 29, 2019, Petitioner received a flu vaccine at Walgreens. Ex.
1 at 4-5. The administrator circled the “L” in “L/R” to indicate site of
administration. Id. at 5.
• On October 15, 2019, just sixteen days after vaccination, Petitioner
presented to an orthopedist, Dr. James Starman, complaining of severe
right shoulder pain. Ex. 4 at 63 (emphasis added). She reported pain since
her flu vaccine, very limited range of motion, and difficulty sleeping. Id. at
65. Following an examination that revealed limited range of motion and
positive signs of impingement, Dr. Starman diagnosed Petitioner with right
shoulder pain status-post flu vaccination with evidence of an inflammatory
response. Id. at 67. Petitioner was recommended and received a
corticosteroid injection in her right shoulder. Id.
• Petitioner returned to Dr. Starman the following month on November 25,
2019, reporting that the injection only provided temporary relief for her right
shoulder pain. Ex. 4 at 60. Petitioner showed improvement but still had
limited range of motion, signs of impingement, and pain. Id. at 59-60.
Petitioner received a second corticosteroid injection in her right shoulder.
Id. at 60.
• Petitioner returned to Dr. Starman on December 23, 2019, reporting that
she was still experiencing right shoulder pain. Petitioner continued to have
limitations in range of motion. Ex. 4 at 56. Dr. Starman ordered a right
shoulder MRI and prescribed Meloxicam (Mobic). Id. at 55.
3 While I have not specifically addressed every medical record, or all arguments presented in the parties’
briefs, I have fully considered all records as well as arguments presented by both parties.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 5
• An MRI of Petitioner’s right shoulder was taken on December 30, 2019. Ex.
4 at 55. The MRI showed a full thickness tear of the posterior supraspinatus
tendon footprint, tendinosis, some fluid in the subacromial bursa, and mild
acromioclavicular arthrosis. Id.
• On January 6, 2020, following review of Petitioner’s MRI results, Dr.
Starman diagnosed Petitioner with a right shoulder rotator cuff tear and
subacromial bursitis. Ex. 4 at 52. Dr. Starman recommended Petitioner
undergo right shoulder arthroscopy. Id.
• On February 19, 2020, Petitioner underwent right shoulder arthroscopy that
included bursal debridement, subacromial acromioplasty, and rotator cuff
repair. Ex. 4 at 41-43.
• Petitioner began physical therapy on March 12, 2020. Ex. 4 at 28. At her
initial session, Petitioner reported intermittent pain at levels of 3-4 out of 10
and pain when lifting, reaching, bending, or twisting her arm. Id.
• On May 8, 2020, Petitioner presented to Dr. Starman for a post-operative
follow-up. Ex. 4 at 5. He noted that Petitioner reported “essentially 0” pain,
taking no pain medications, no problems with the surgical incisions, and
making good progress in physical therapy. Id. Petitioner demonstrated
“active range of motion up to 170 degrees.” Id.
• Petitioner underwent a total of ten physical therapy sessions and was
discharged after May 13, 2020. Ex. 4 at 3. She had made good progress
and was to continue with home exercises. Id.
In addition to the medical records, Petitioner filed a short affidavit affirming receipt
of the September 29, 2019 flu vaccination in her right shoulder. Ex. 6. Though the “left
shoulder is circled as the location of vaccination…it is incorrect.” Id. ¶¶3-4.
I find that the records taken in their totality solidly support Petitioner’s contention
that the September 29, 2019 vaccination was likely administered in her right arm. The
only medical record indicating otherwise is Petitioner’s initial vaccination record. Ex. 1 at
5. Respondent argues that this record deserves the most weight because it was created
contemporaneously with the administration of Petitioner’s vaccination, giving it more
probative value than later testimony. ECF No. 23 at 2; Kirby v. Sec’y Health & Hum.
Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2021)) (“not erroneous to give greater weight to
contemporaneous medical records than to later, contradictory testimony”).
4

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 5
However, vaccine records can be erroneous (particularly when the selection of
situs is only indicated by a handwritten mark), even if they are deemed to correctly identify
vaccination situs in many other cases. And here, the record at issue must be weighed
against Petitioner’s report of a right arm pain just sixteen days after vaccination. When
Petitioner reported first right shoulder pain to Dr. Starman in October of 2019, she related
the issue to her September vaccination. Ex. 4 at 63. Also, Dr. Starman noted evidence of
an inflammatory response in Petitioner’s right shoulder at that visit. After the October visit,
Petitioner continued to consistently relate her right arm pain and limitations to the
September 2019 vaccination. See Ex. 4 at 28, 56, 60.
It is certainly true that the initial record of vaccine situs contradicts Petitioner’s
contention (although in a somewhat cursory fashion). But that record itself lacks later
corroboration – whereas the entire body of medical records following vaccination indicate
administration of the flu vaccine in Petitioner’s right arm. All of this is also consistent with
Petitioner’s own allegations; even if they alone cannot rebut the record, they bulwark other
contemporaneous evidence. Thus, preponderant proof supports Petitioner’s contention
about situs.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has established receipt of the
subject vaccination in her right arm. In light of the lack of additional objections in
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and the straightforward nature of this case, I recommend
that the parties engage in settlement discussions. A scheduling order will be
issued shortly for the conveyance of Petitioner’s demand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00960-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/06/2023 ) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 34 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0960V
UNPUBLISHED
TRACY SPRINKLE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 6, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On August 3, 2020, Tracy Sprinkle 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 as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine
on September 29, 2019, she suffered from a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. On December 12, 2022, I issued a Ruling, finding
that the records supported Petitioner’s contention that the September 29, 2019
vaccination was likely administered to Petitioner’s right shoulder as she alleged. Ruling
at 1, 4 (ECF No. 25). Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the sequela of this injury
for more than six months. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
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-00960-UNJ Document 34 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 2
On February 3, 2023, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he
states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 2. Specifically, Respondent stated that while
he preserves his right to appeal my December 12, 2022, Ruling, Respondent submits that
Petitioner has otherwise satisfied the legal prerequisites for compensation under the
Vaccine Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D), 300aa-13(a)(1). Id. at 2. Respondent
further agrees that given my Ruling, Petitioner’s injury stemming from the flu vaccination
on September 29, 2019, is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.
Specifically,
petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his right
shoulder; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular
vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was
administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to
explain petitioner’s shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10). DICP did
not identify any other causes for petitioner’s injury, and records show that
she suffered the sequela of this injury for more than six months. Based on
the medical records outlined above, petitioner has met the statutory
requirements for entitlement to compensation 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 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00960-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-25
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/15/2024) regarding 40 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/25/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0960V
TRACY SPRINKLE,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: August 15, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 3, 2020, Tracy Sprinkle filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September
29, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
Although Petitioner has been found entitled to compensation, the parties could not
agree on the damages to be awarded, and therefore briefed the matter for my
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-00960-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/25/24 Page 2 of 8
consideration. For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to
compensation in the amount of $105,000.00 for her actual pain and suffering, plus
$1,790.88 (uncontested) for her unreimbursable medical expenses.
I. Procedural History
As stated above, on February 6, 2023, I issued a ruling on entitlement in favor of
Petitioner. The parties were unable to agree on an appropriate amount of damages,
however, and therefore agreed to brief their dispute. ECF Nos. 37-39. On May 15, 2023,
Petitioner filed her brief in support of damages (“Mot.”), and Respondent filed a Response
on July 12, 2023 (“Opp.”). Petitioner filed a reply (“Reply”) memorandum on August 8,
2023. ECF Nos. 38-39. This case is now ready for adjudication.
II. Relevant Medical History
A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the Petition, affidavits, my
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, and the parties’
respective motions and pleadings. While I have not specifically addressed every medical
record, or all arguments presented in the parties’ briefs, I have fully considered all records
as well as arguments presented by both parties.
Ms. Sprinkle was a 60-year-old health insurance customer service representative
at the time she received a flu vaccine in her right shoulder at Walgreens Pharmacy on
September 29, 2019.3 Ex. 1 at 4-5; Her past medical history is unremarkable for any type
of right shoulder pain or dysfunction. See generally Exs. 2-3.
On October 15, 2019, just 16 days after vaccination, Ms. Sprinkle presented to an
orthopedist, Dr. James Starman at OrthoCarolina, complaining of severe right shoulder
pain. Ex. 4 at 63-67. She reported pain since her vaccination, very limited range of motion,
and difficulty sleeping. Id. at 65. Following a physical examination that revealed limited
range of motion and positive signs of impingement, Dr. Starman diagnosed Petitioner with
right shoulder pain status-post flu vaccination with evidence of an inflammatory response.
Id. at 67. Ms. Sprinkle rated her pain at a level of 8-9/10 and was recommended and
received a corticosteroid injection in her right shoulder. Id.
Ms. Sprinkle returned to Dr. Starman the following month on November 25, 2019,
reporting that the injection only provided temporary relief for her right shoulder pain. Ex.
4 at 60. Petitioner showed improvement but still had limited range of motion, signs of
3 On December 12, 2022, I issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in which I found that Petitioner
had established receipt of the subject vaccination in her right arm. ECF No. 25.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/25/24 Page 3 of 8
impingement, and pain. Id. at 59-60. She rated her pain at a 5/10 at this time and received
a second corticosteroid injection in her right shoulder. Id. at 60.
Ms. Sprinkle returned to Dr. Starman on December 23, 2019, reporting that she
was still experiencing right shoulder pain. Petitioner continued to have limitations in range
of motion. Ex. 4 at 56. Dr. Starman ordered a right shoulder MRI and prescribed
Meloxicam. Id. at 55. Later that same month, Petitioner underwent an MRI of her right
shoulder. Ex. 4 at 55. The MRI showed a full thickness tear of the posterior supraspinatus
tendon footprint, tendinosis, some fluid in the subacromial bursa, and mild
acromioclavicular arthrosis. Id.
On January 6, 2020, following review of Petitioner’s MRI results, Dr. Starman
diagnosed Ms. Sprinkle with a right shoulder rotator cuff tear and subacromial bursitis.
Ex. 4 at 52. She rated her pain at a 3-4/10 at this time. Id. at 53. Dr. Starman
recommended Petitioner undergo right shoulder arthroscopy. Id.
On February 19, 2020, Ms. Sprinkle underwent right shoulder arthroscopic surgery
that included bursal debridement, subacromial acromioplasty, and rotator cuff repair. Ex.
4 at 41-43. She began physical therapy on March 12, 2020. Ex. 4 at 28. At her initial
session, Petitioner reported intermittent pain at levels of 3-4 out of 10 and pain when
lifting, reaching, bending, or twisting her arm. Id.
On May 8, 2020, Ms. Sprinkle presented to Dr. Starman for a post-operative follow-
up. Ex. 4 at 5. He noted that Petitioner reported “essentially 0” pain, taking no pain
medications, no problems with the surgical incisions, and making good progress in
physical therapy. Id. Petitioner demonstrated “active range of motion up to 170 degrees.”
Id. Petitioner subsequently underwent a total of 10 physical therapy sessions and was
discharged after May 13, 2020. Id. at 3. She had made good progress and was to continue
with home exercises. Id.
On June 19, 2020, Ms. Sprinkle returned to Dr. Starman for a four month post
operative appointment. Ex. 9 at 4. She reported some minor restrictions but was close to
full use of the shoulder. Id. at 4-5.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
a. Petitioner
In her brief, Ms. Sprinkle noted that she sought treatment for her injury quickly –
just 16 days after vaccination, and immediately reported “severe” pain at a level of 8-9/10.
Mot. at 7. She stated that she was unable to perform everyday activities and was having
3

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/25/24 Page 4 of 8
problems simply moving her arm. Id. Ms. Sprinkle stated that even seven months post-
vaccination, she continued to experience soreness and reduced range of motion. Id. at 8.
Thus, based on the facts and circumstances of her case, Petitioner contends that she is
entitled to an award of $115,000.00 in past pain and suffering. Id. at 9.
Petitioner cited to five cases in support of her claim for past pain and suffering: (1)
Cosden v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No 20-1783V, 2023 WL 2469255 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Feb. 9, 2023), (2) Kestner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0025V,
2023 WL 2447499 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2023), (3) Issertell v. Health & Human
Servs., No. 20-0099V, 2022 WL 2288247 (Fed. Cl., May 17, 2022), Vaccaro v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1883V, 2022 WL 662550 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb 2,
2022), and (5) Moore v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1850V, 2022 WL 962524
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 25, 2022). In all, the petitioners were awarded sums ranging
from $110,000.00 to $115,000.00 for their past pain and suffering.
b. Respondent
Respondent has argued that Petitioner’s SIRVA was “mild to moderate,” and thus
I should award for past pain and suffering “a lower amount that is consistent with the
evidence presented.” Opp at 5. Respondent has argued that Petitioner’s treatment course
was “relatively short in duration,” and that she underwent arthroscopic surgery less than
five months post vaccination. Opp. at 5. Following surgery, Petitioner “achieved full pain
relief within two-months of PT and was ‘clinically healed’ less than nine months after
vaccination.” Id.
Respondent attempted to distinguish the five cases cited by Petitioner, noting that
these were all surgical cases where the length of treatment exceeded Ms. Sprinkle’s
length of treatment of only nine months, there were more extensive courses of physical
therapy, and/or the petitioners in those cases experienced more severe pain. Opp at 6-9.
Respondent argued that in the present case, “neither the facts of this case, nor the
decisions relied on by petitioner, support a pain and suffering damages award of
$115,00.00.” Opp. at 8.
Respondent does not provide any proposed specific amount to award Petitioner
for her pain and suffering, stating that I should simply calculate the award in a manner
“consistent with the evidence presented.” Opp at 5. Respondent thus offered no case
support and no evidence to support a lower figure, other than attempting to distinguish
the cases cited by Petitioner.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/25/24 Page 5 of 8
IV. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include an award “[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). 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 precise 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) (“Awards 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)).
A special master may also look to prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the
resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in each 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 suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount
of damages in this case.”). And, of course, a special master may rely on his or her own
experience adjudicating similar claims. 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). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering
is not determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
5

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/25/24 Page 6 of 8
V. Appropriate Compensation in this SIRVA Case
a. Awareness of Suffering
Neither party disputes that that Ms. Sprinkle had full awareness of her suffering,
and I find that fact is supported by the record evidence.
b. Severity and Duration of Pain and Suffering
Ms. Sprinkle’s SIRVA injury required surgical intervention and an overall treatment
course of nine months. The five cases cited by Petitioner are good and reasonable
comparable cases, all involving surgery and similar treatment lengths. However, there
are a few distinguishing factors that warrant a slightly lesser award than those awarded
in Cosden, Kestner, Vaccaro, Issertell, and Moore. In Moore, for example, the petitioner
completed 24 sessions of physical therapy; in Cosden and Vaccaro, the petitioners each
underwent 28 physical therapy sessions, while in Kestner, the petitioner completed 29
sessions of physical therapy. In Moore, the petitioner’s total treatment course spanned
15 months, although there was a four-month treatment gap. Thus, each case presented
a slightly more severe injury than herein, whether it be due to more severe pain (e.g.,
Cosden, Issertell, and Vaccaro), more treatment (e.g., Kestner, Vaccaro, and Moore),
extenuating circumstances (Kestner - where the Petitioner’s pain interfered with her work
as a nurse, and she had to stop working for six weeks) or a longer treatment course
(Kestner, Vaccaro and Moore).
Respondent argued that Petitioner’s pain rating was mild to moderate, because
when she initially presented on October 15, 2019, she rated her pain at a fairly high level,
but by December 23, 2019, and with conservative treatment, Petitioner’s pain had
decreased. Opp. At 5. Then, the week after surgery in February 2020, her pain remained
at a lower level, and she was only taking Tylenol as needed. Id. Petitioner’s pain continued
to decrease over the course of PT. Id. By May 8, 2020, about seven months post-
vaccination, Petitioner’s pain was “essentially 0.” Id. Petitioner, on the other hand, noted
that she reported “severe pain” initially. Mot. at 7. It was only after physical therapy and
two cortisone injections, that her pain level began to decrease. Id. at 8.
Overall, Ms. Sprinkle’s injury involves a mild to severe surgical SIRVA injury that
impacted her personal life as an employee and grandmother, affected her sleep, ability
to care for herself and to engage in normal everyday activities such as laundry, cooking,
and cleaning. She reported her injury to a medical provider very quickly, just 16 days post
vaccination, underwent surgery, one round of physical therapy totaling 10 sessions, two
steroid injections, one x-ray and one MRI. Ex. Ex. 4 at 3-26, 36-43, 52-56, 59-67; Ex. 12
6

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/25/24 Page 7 of 8
at 1. However, the overall treatment length and course undermines, slightly, the
conclusion that the injury was extremely severe.
Respondent’s decision to not offer a competing amount, or even one comparable
case supporting such a figure, did little to help resolve the dispute. Presumably,
Respondent believes that his best offer was made when he tendered a proffer to
Petitioner. However, I have repeatedly noted that proffers only reflect Respondent’s
judgment as to the correct damages sum, and thus (while they may or may not be legally
defensible or persuasive) are not as useful in determining damages as a reasoned
determination by a special master. As I have stated in this and prior decisions,
Respondent runs the risk that I will simply adopt the Petitioner’s figure if this approach is
maintained in future cases.
Under such circumstances and considering the arguments presented by both
parties at the hearing, a review of the cited cases, and based on the record as a whole, I
find that $105,000.00 in compensation for past pain and suffering is reasonable and
appropriate in this case. Respondent has not objected to the amount Petitioner has
requested for past unreimbursable expenses, and thus, award the full amount requested
of $1,790.88.
CONCLUSION
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole, I find that
$105,000.00, represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for
Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.4 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to
$1,790.88 in actual unreimbursable expenses.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $106,790.88, 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.5
4 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)).
5 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.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00960-UNJ Document 46 Filed 09/25/24 Page 8 of 8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8