VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01118
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01118
Petitioner: Lisa A. Whitehead
Filed: 2021-12-28
Decided: 2023-10-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-03
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 205951

AI-assisted case summary:
Lisa Whitehead filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 3, 2019. The respondent conceded that Ms. Whitehead was entitled to compensation, agreeing that her injury met the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. The parties were unable to resolve damages on their own, leading to a decision awarding damages. The court found that Ms. Whitehead is entitled to an award of $205,951.00, which includes $199,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $6,951.00 for actual unreimbursed expenses. The decision noted that Ms. Whitehead experienced a moderate to severe SIRVA injury for approximately 33 months, requiring multiple treatments including steroid injections, two surgeries, and physical therapy. The court considered her case comparable to other SIRVA cases that received awards between $195,000.00 and $200,000.00 for pain and suffering, taking into account the duration and severity of her injury, as well as complicating personal circumstances.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01118-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-01-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/28/2021) regarding 32 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 37 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1118V
UNPUBLISHED
LISA A. WHITEHEAD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 28, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Richard H. Moeller, Moore, Heffernan, et al., Sioux City, IA, for Petitioner.
Joseph Adam Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 2, 2020, Lisa Whitehead 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”) vaccination received on October
3, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On December 16, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 1. Specifically, it is Respondent’s position that Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as
defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 6. Specifically, Respondent agrees that
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-01118-UNJ Document 37 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
Petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder
that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic
studies occurring after vaccination; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt
of an intramuscular vaccination; Petitioner’s 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 left shoulder pain. Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01118-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-16
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/14/2023) regarding 59 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1118V
LISA A. WHITEHEAD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 14, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Richard H. Moeller, Moore, Heffernan, et al., Sioux City, IA, for Petitioner.
Joseph Adam Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 2, 2020, Lisa A. Whitehead 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury or, in the alternative caused-in-fact injury,
after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 3, 2019. Petition at 1-2, ¶¶ 3-4, 34-
35. Respondent conceded entitlement, but the parties were unable to resolve damages
on their own,3 so I ordered briefing on the matter.
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).
3 After more than one year of damages discussions, the parties informed me that they had reached an
agreement regarding the appropriate amount of Petitioner’s out-of-pocket expenses, but had reached an

Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount $205,951.00, representing $199,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, plus $6,951.00 for actual/unreimbursed expenses.
I. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment award such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award
for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3)
duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (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)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is
nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and
suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages
in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with my
impasse regarding the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering. Status Report, filed Dec.
21, 2022, ECF No. 52.
2

Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 3 of 9
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of
vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
The Graves court maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering awards
into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is compared
to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 590. Instead, Graves
assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering
awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the
Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely
cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible
awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards.
II. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU5
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of July 1, 2023, 3,304 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU on
July 1, 2014. Compensation was awarded in 3,211 of these cases, with the remaining 93
cases dismissed.
Of the compensated cases, 1,834 SPU SIRVA cases involved a prior ruling that
petitioner was entitled to compensation. In only 173 of these cases was the amount of
damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision. As I have previously
stated, the written decisions setting forth such determinations, prepared by neutral judicial
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell.
For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims,
were assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019,
the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
5 All figures included in this decision are derived from a review of the decisions awarding compensation
within the SPU. All decisions reviewed are, or will be, available publicly. All figures and calculations cited
are approximate.
3

Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 4 of 9
officers (the special masters themselves), provide the most reliable precedent setting
forth what similarly-situated claimants should also receive.6
1,632 of this subset of post-entitlement determination, compensation-awarding
cases, were the product of informal settlement - cases via proffer and 29 cases via
stipulation. Although all proposed amounts denote an agreement reached by the parties,
those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than any formal agreement
or acknowledgment by Respondent that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages. Of course, even though any such informally-resolved case must still be
approved by a special master, these determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number
of such cases, these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of
awards received overall in comparable cases.” Sakovits, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
(emphasis in original).
The remaining 1,377 compensated SIRVA cases were resolved via stipulated
agreement of the parties without a prior ruling on entitlement. These agreements are often
described as “litigative risk” settlements, and thus represent a reduced percentage of the
compensation which otherwise would be awarded. Due to the complexity of these
settlement discussions, many which involve multiple competing factors, these awards do
not constitute a reliable gauge of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded
in other SPU SIRVA cases.
The data for all groups described above reflect the expected differences in
outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated7
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 173 1,632 29 1,273
Lowest $40,757.91 $22,500.00 $45,000.00 $5,000.00
1st Quartile $70,200.00 $62,825.18 $90,000.00 $38,134.81
Median $92,299.83 $83,039.25 $130,000.00 $55,000.00
3rd Quartile $125,000.00 $111,475.61 $150,000.00 $80,803.17
Largest $265,034.87 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
6 See, e.g., Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (discussing the difference between cases in which damages are agreed upon by
the parties and cases in which damages are determined by a special master).
7 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
4

Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 5 of 9
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 173 SPU SIRVA cases which required a reasoned damages decision,
compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from $40,000.00
to $215,000.00, with $90,000.00 as the median amount. Only seven of these cases
involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from $250.00
to $1,500.00.8
In cases with lower awards for past pain and suffering, many petitioners commonly
demonstrated only mild to moderate levels of pain throughout their injury course. This
lack of significant pain is often evidenced by a delay in seeking treatment – over six
months in one case. In cases with more significant initial pain, petitioners usually
experienced this greater pain for three months or less. Most petitioners displayed only
mild to moderate limitations in range of motion (“ROM”), and MRI imaging showed
evidence of mild to moderate pathologies such as tendinosis, bursitis, or edema. Many
petitioners suffered from unrelated conditions to which a portion of their pain and suffering
could be attributed. These SIRVAs usually resolved after one to two cortisone injections
and two months or less of physical therapy (“PT”). None required surgery. Except in one
case involving very mild pain levels, the duration of the SIRVA injury ranged from six to
30 months, with most petitioners averaging approximately nine months of pain. Although
some petitioners asserted residual pain, the prognosis in these cases was positive.
Cases with higher awards for past pain and suffering involved petitioners who
suffered more significant levels of pain and SIRVAs of longer duration. Most of these
petitioners subjectively rated their pain within the upper half of a ten-point pain scale and
sought treatment of their SIRVAs more immediately, often within 30 days of vaccination.
All experienced moderate to severe limitations in range of motion. MRI imaging showed
more significant findings, with the majority showing evidence of partial tearing. Surgery or
significant conservative treatment, up to 133 PT sessions - occasionally spanning several
years, and multiple cortisone injections, were required in these cases. In six cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
The parties agree Petitioner should be awarded $6,951.00 for past unreimbursed
expenses. Petitioner’s Damages Brief (“Brief”) at 1 n.1, 17, filed Feb. 8, 2023, ECF No.
56. Thus, the only area of disagreement is the amount of compensation which should be
8 Additionally, a first-year future pain and suffering award of $10,000.00 was made in one case. Dhanoa v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 6 of 9
awarded for Petitioner’s past/actual pain and suffering. Petitioner seeks $210,000.00 for
her pain and suffering, and Respondent proposes the lower amount of $150,000.00. Brief
at 1, 18; Respondent’s Brief Regarding Damages (“Opp.”) at 10.
When arguing for this pain and suffering amount, Petitioner emphasizes the almost
three-year duration of her SIRVA injury and extensive treatment received during that time
- including two surgeries, four steroid injections, two MRIs, pain medication, and PT. Brief
at 15. She also argues that her suffering was augmented by her personal circumstances
- job stress related to a change in management, sadness due to her granddaughter’s
cancer diagnosis in October 2020, issues created by the COVID Pandemic, and
difficulties caring for her adult disabled child who suffered a fall and fractured three
cervical vertebrae in November 2020. Id. at 2, 7-10, 15-16. She favorably compares the
facts and circumstances in her case with those suffered by the petitioners in Lavigne,
Meirndorf, McDorman, M.W., and Schoonover9 - decisions featuring past pain and
suffering awards ranging from $195,000.00 to $200,000.00. Brief at 16-17.
In contrast, Respondent emphasizes an almost one-year gap in treatment from
June 9, 2020, through May 17, 2021; significant improvement following a second surgery
on February 23, 2022; and almost complete resolution of Petitioner’s injury by July 5,
2022, less than three years post-vaccination. Opp. at 8-9. Respondent proposes Rice-
Hansen and M.W.,10 involving awards of $175,000.00 and $195,000,00, respectively, as
comparable cases, insisting Petitioner’s SIRVA injury was milder and required less
treatment. Opp. at 8-9.
In her reply brief, Petitioner criticizes Respondent’s failure to mention the specific
circumstances involved in her case, and what she deems to be a mischaracterization of
her gap in treatment. Petitioner’s Responsive Damages Brief (“Reply”), at 1-6, filed Feb.
23, 2023, ECF No. 57. Drawing a distinction between a failure to seek treatment that is
indicative of a resolution or reduction in symptoms versus the gap in her case (which
occurred between two surgeries and during the COVID Pandemic), Petitioner maintains
the record overall establishes continued pain (rated as five out of ten) during this time. Id.
9 Lavigne v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1298V, 2022 WL 2275853 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
12, 2022) (awarding $198,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Meirndorf v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-1876V, 2022 WL 1055475 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 7, 2022) (awarding $200,000.00 for past pain
and suffering); McDorman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0814V, 2021 WL 5504698 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2021) (awarding $200,000.00 for past pain and suffering); M.W. v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs, No. 18-0267V, 2021 WL 3618177 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 17, 2021); Schoonover v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1324V, 2020 WL 5351341 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 5, 2020) (awarding
$200,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
10 Rice-Hansen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1338V, 2022 WL 18339478 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Dec. 9, 2022); M.W., 2021 WL 3618177.
6

Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 7 of 9
at 5-6.
Additionally, Petitioner disputes Respondent’s contention that her pain and
suffering was lower than that experienced by the petitioners in Rice-Hansen and M.W.
Reply at 7-10. She contrasts the surgery and subsequent manipulation under anesthesia
in Rice-Hansen with the two surgeries she underwent, emphasizing my description of the
manipulation as generally “less invasive than surgery.” Id. at 8 (citing Rice-Hansen, 2022
WL 18339478, at *10). Noting that I declined to award an amount for future pain and
suffering in M.W., Petitioner argues that the M.W. petitioner’s continued treatment and
additional MRI are not sufficient to support the substantially lower figure proposed by
Respondent. Reply at 9-10.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact his
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing the analysis in this case, I review 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.
A thorough review of the medical record reveals that Ms. Whitehead suffered a
moderate to severe SIRVA injury for approximately 33 months.11 She was administered
four steroid injections, underwent two surgeries, and attended a total 19 PT sessions in
three separate groupings – after her first surgery, several months before her second
surgery, and after her second surgery. She did not see significant improvement in her
symptoms until May 2022, after her second surgery and subsequent PT. Exhibit 23 at 13;
see Exhibit 10-34 (PT records). By July 5, 2022, she showed a good resolution of her
symptoms. Exhibit 24 at 10 (reporting only minor pain with extreme movement and the
ability to lay on her left side and sleep well); see also Exhibit 27 at ¶ 28 (second affidavit).
Although Petitioner failed to seek treatment from June 9, 2020, through May 17,
11 From vaccination until her second surgery, almost 29 months later, on February 22, 2022, Petitioner
consistently reported pain levels ranging from five to ten on a scale of ten. E.g., Exhibit 8 at 60, 55, 47;
Exhibit 15 at 12, 8; Exhibit 16 at 14, 8; Exhibit 22 at 10 (all cites in chronological order by treatment date).
For a two-month period during the first half of 2020, her pain levels were three out of ten. Exhibit 8 at 32;
Exhibit 15 at 21 (all cites in chronological order by treatment date).
7

Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 8 of 9
2021, the record shows she continued to experience symptoms during this time.12 And
the COVID Pandemic does explain some of the treatment lapse. Additionally, Petitioner
was forced to cease the PT she attended following her first surgery, when she required
gall bladder surgery in early May 2020. Exhibit 8 at 15-16.
Petitioner’s case was further complicated by other personal circumstances
occurring simultaneously with her SIRVA injury. Petitioner has substantiated that she
faced work-related difficulties at this time that were exacerbated by her medical concerns.
Exhibit 27 at ¶¶ 6, 16-17, 27. Additionally, her thirty-three-year-old son, who suffered
hydrocephalus13 at birth, required significant help with daily tasks and suffered a seizure
and a fall down the cellar steps, resulting in fractures in three spinal vertebrae, during
November 2020. Exhibit 27 at ¶¶ 5, 12, 22-23. Around this same time, Petitioner’s six-
year-old granddaughter was diagnosed with embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma,14 a rare
form of childhood cancer. Exhibit 27 at ¶¶ 21, 27.
The cases proposed by Petitioner offer the most appropriate comparisons. All
involved prompt initial treatment, two surgeries, multiple cortisone injection (except for
M.W.), a similar amount of PT, and an overall injury duration of approximately three years
(between two and four years).15 The closest examples are provided by Lavigne,
McDorman, and Meirndorf – with Petitioner’s duration and pain levels slightly above those
in Lavigne but slightly below those in McDorman and Meirndorf. Lavigne, 2022 WL
2275853, at *1-3; McDorman, 2021 WL 5504698, at *2-4; Meirndorf, 2022 WL 1055475,
at *2-3. Additionally, the McDorman and Meirndorf petitioners suffered similarly
complicating factors of a special needs son and depression due to chronic pain,
respectively. McDorman, 2021 WL 5504698, at *4; Meirndorf, 2022 WL 1055475, at *3
. Given the pain and suffering awards of $198,000.00 in Lavigne and $200,000.00
in McDorman and Meirndorf, I find $199,000.00 to be an appropriate amount for
Petitioner’s past pain and suffering.
12 Prior to this gap in treatment, Petitioner continued to report symptoms of her SIRVA injury and a pain
level of three out of ten. Exhibit 15 at 23. When she returned for treatment in May 2021, Petitioner reported
continued daily pain, increasing with daily activities, at a level of five out of ten. Id. at 14.
13 Hydrocephalus is “a condition marked by dilation of the cerebral ventricles, most often occurring
secondary to obstruction of the cerebrospinal fluid pathways . . . and accompanied by an accumulation of
cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY at 877 (32th ed. 2012).
14 Rhabdomyosarcoma is “a highly malignant tumor of striated muscle derived from primitive mesenchymal
cells and exhibiting differential along rhabdomyoblastic lines, including but not limited to the presence of
cells with recognizable cross striations.” DORLAND’S at 1637. Embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma is “the most
common for of rhabdomyosarcoma.” DORLAND’S at 1638.
15 Lavigne, 2022 WL 2275853, at *1-3; Meirndorf, 2022 WL 1055475, at *2-3; M.W., 2021 WL 3618177, at
*1-2; McDorman, 2021 WL 5504698, at *2-4; Schoonover, 2020 WL 5351341, at *4-5.
8

Case 1:20-vv-01118-UNJ Document 64 Filed 10/16/23 Page 9 of 9
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $199,00.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering.16 I also find that Petitioner
is entitled to $6,951.00 in past expenses.
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award a lump
sum payment of $205,951.00, representing $199,000.00 for her actual pain and
suffering and $6,591.00 for her actual unreimbursable expenses, 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 the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
16 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)).
17 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.
9