VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01225
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01225
Petitioner: Michael Calvin Miller
Filed: 2020-09-18
Decided: 2026-01-22
Vaccine: pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
Vaccination date: 2018-11-09
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 165386.11

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 18, 2020, Michael Calvin Miller filed a petition alleging that a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine administered on November 9, 2018 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The public proffer identifies him as a competent adult but does not state an exact age.

Respondent conceded entitlement on July 27, 2022, agreeing that Mr. Miller satisfied the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for SIRVA. Damages did not settle quickly. The parties disputed the extent of SIRVA sequelae and ongoing comorbidities, and Chief Special Master Corcoran initially resolved pain and suffering after briefing, awarding $140,000.00 for past pain and suffering plus $1,500.00 per year for future pain and suffering.

The parties later resolved the remaining components and the net present value of future pain and suffering by proffer. On January 22, 2026, Mr. Miller was awarded $165,386.11 as a lump sum through counsel: $140,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $20,486.70 for projected pain and suffering, and $4,899.41 for actual unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Adult petitioner; pneumococcal conjugate vaccine November 9, 2018; Table SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded entitlement July 27, 2022. Damages disputed; SM Corcoran first awarded $140,000 past pain/suffering plus $1,500/year future pain/suffering, then final proffer set net present value. Final damages January 22, 2026: $165,386.11 = $140,000 actual pain/suffering + $20,486.70 projected pain/suffering + $4,899.41 expenses. Petition filed September 18, 2020.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01225-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-09-01
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/28/2022) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 2
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1225V
UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL CALVIN MILLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 28, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Pneumococcal
Conjugate Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA)
Dylan Wilbanks, Wilbanks Law Firm, P.C., Commerce, GA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 18, 2020, Michael Calvin Miller filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), which meets the Table definition for a SIRVA injury, following
the receipt of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on November 9, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶
2, 23-24. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccine in the United States, that
he suffered the residual effects of his SIRVA more than six months post-vaccination, and
that neither he nor any other person has filed a civil action or received compensation for
his SIRVA. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 22, 25-27. 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-01225-UNJ Document 38 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 2
On July 27, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Specifically, Respondent believes “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to interpretation (“QAI”)
for SIRVA.” Id. at 8. Respondent further agrees that “based on the present record,
[P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01225-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-11
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/27/2025) regarding 59 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 1 of 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1225V
MICHAEL CALVIN MILLER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 27, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Dylan Wilbanks, Wilbanks Law Firm, P.C., Commerce, GA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
PARTIAL RULING ON DAMAGES1
On September 18, 2020, Michael Calvin Miller filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following the receipt of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on
November 9, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 23-24. After Respondent conceded entitlement,
the parties were unable to resolve damages on their own,3 so I ordered briefing on the
matter.
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 (2018).
3 Approximately three months after I determined Petitioner was entitled to compensation, the parties
informed me that they had reached an impasse in their damages discussions and requested that I set a
briefing schedule. Status Report, filed Nov. 4, 2022, ECF No. 41.
.

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 2 of 13
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $140,000.00 for past pain and suffering, plus $1,500.00 per
year for future pain and suffering. The remaining damages categories to be decided
and net present value of any compensation attributable to future amounts require
additional input from the parties before they can be resolved.
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
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
2

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 3 of 13
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).
Graves 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 SPU4
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of July 1, 2025, 4,983 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU more
than ten years before. Compensation has been awarded in the vast majority of cases
(4,817), with the remaining 166 cases dismissed.
2,744 of the compensated SPU SIRVA cases were the result of a ruling that the
petitioner was entitled to compensation (as opposed to an informal settlement), and
therefore reflect full compensation.5 In only 310 of these cases, however, was the amount
of damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision.6 As I have previously
4 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.
5 The remaining 2,073 compensated SIRVA cases were resolved via stipulated agreement of the parties
without a prior ruling on entitlement. These agreements are often described as “litigative risk” settlements,
and thus represent a reduced percentage of the compensation which otherwise would be awarded.
Because multiple competing factors may cause the parties to settle a case (with some having little to do
with the merits of an underlying claim), these awards from settled cases do not constitute a reliable gauge
of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded in other SPU SIRVA cases.
6 The rest of these cases resulting in damages after concession were either reflective of a proffer by
Respondent (2,403 cases) or stipulation (31 cases). Although all proposed amounts denote some form of
agreement reached by the parties, those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than
instances in which Respondent formally acknowledges that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages.
3

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 4 of 13
stated, the written decisions setting forth such determinations, prepared by neutral judicial
officers (the special masters themselves), provide the most reliable guidance in deciding
what similarly-situated claimants should also receive.7
The data for all categories of damages decisions described above reflect the
expected differences in outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated8
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 310 2,403 31 2,073
Lowest $25,000.00 $4,000.00 $37,013.60 $1,000.00
1st Quartile $67,020.04 $60,000.00 $90,000.00 $30,000.00
Median $91,290.04 $79,444.74 $115,772.83 $50,000.00
3rd Quartile $125,000.00 $106,293.26 $161,501.20 $75,000.00
Largest $1,569,302.82 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 310 SPU SIRVA cases in which damages were determined via reasoned
decision, compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from
$25,000.00 to $215,000.00, with $90,000.00 as the median amount. Only ten of these
cases involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from
$250.00 to $1,500.00.9 In one of these cases, the future pain and suffering award was
limited by the statutory pain and suffering cap.10
7 Of course, even though all independently-settled damages issues (whether by stipulation/settlement or
proffer) must still be approved by a special master, such determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number of such cases,
these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of awards received overall in
comparable cases.” Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & 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).
8 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
9 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).
10 Joyce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1882V, 2024 WL 1235409, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 20, 2024) (applying the $250,000.00 statutory cap for actual and future pain and suffering set forth in
Section 15(a)(4) before reducing the future award to net present value as required by Section 15(f)(4)(A));
see Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir.1994) (requiring the
4

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 5 of 13
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 nine cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to a past pain and suffering award of
$250,000.00, the maximum amount allowed under the Vaccine Act. Petitioner’s Damages
Brief (“Brief”) at 11; see Section 15(a)(4) (statutory limit for actual and projected pain and
suffering). “If . . . his past pain and suffering does not merit that cap, he asks that an
annual amount be prescribed to his future pain and suffering.” Brief at 11. However, he
does not propose a yearly amount.
When arguing for this maximum award, Petitioner contends that “his pain rating
through the years has consistently ranged between three and seven on the widely-used
ten-point scale.” Brief at 9. Referencing his treating physicians’ warning “that his condition
application of the statutory cap before any projected pain and suffering award is reduced to net present
value).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 6 of 13
would be progressive,” he reports a continuing tremor and weakness in his left hand which
he characterizes as debilitating. Id. He adds that, in the last year, he has experienced “the
‘mirroring’ of this symptom that is common to CRPS.[11]” Brief at 9. Insisting that he
“consistently sought treatment for his condition and continues to do so” (id. at 9), he
asserts that he “will continue to suffer significant pain that affects the quality of life for the
rest of his life[12]” (id. at 9-10).
Maintaining that “CRPS is a recognized sequela of SIRVA,[13]” Petitioner favorably
compares his facts and circumstances to those suffered by the petitioner in Schettl14 – a
case involving a CRPS injury, past pain and suffering award of $200,000.00, and future
award of $10,000.00 per year. Brief at 10. He specifically mentions the Schettl petitioner’s
difficulties sleeping, engaging in physical activities, socializing, and battling depression;
lack of pain resolution from a ganglion nerve block; and similar “‘mirroring’ of symptoms
in her other side.” Id.
Petitioner also seeks $10,957.81 for past expenses, and $2,466.48 per year for
future.15 Brief at 11. The past expenses are comprised of “$5,690.47 paid either for co-
pays to his providers, or for prescription medication, or for over-the-counter products, or
11 CRPS stands for “complex regional pain syndrome.” MEDICAL ABBREVIATIONS at 152 (16th ed. 2020).
12 Petitioner calculates his life expectancy as being 13.08 years. Brief at 10 n.1.
13 To support this assertion, Petitioner cites three cases - Thompson, Vendiola, and Tucker-Corley. Brief at
10 n.2. However, Thompson involved an informal settlement without any entitlement determination.
Thompson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-0422V, 2022 WL 624024 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
27, 2022); see supra note 12 (for further explanation regarding this type of case resolution). Vendiola and
Tucker-Corley were cases involving allegations of brachial plexopathy and SIRVA, respectively, following
receipt of flu vaccines. In both cases, Respondent opposed entitlement based upon the alleged injury but
conceded entitlement based upon a causal connection between the flu vaccine and CRPS injury. Vendiola
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1780V, 2020 WL 7238475 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 5, 2020);
Tucker-Tucker-Corley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1797V, 2022 WL 359027 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 27, 2022. In both cases, damages were then awarded based on Respondent’s proffer, with the
Vendiola petitioner receiving $120,000.00 in damages ($99,785.39 of which was attributed to pain and
suffering without any past or future designation) and the Tucker-Corley petitioner receiving $62,500.00 for
pain and suffering (again without any past or future designation). Vendiola v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-1780V, 2021 WL 965667 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 8, 2021); Tucker-Tucker-Corley v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1797V, 2022 WL 17968801 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 26, 2022).
14 Petitioner cites the prior ruling on pain and suffering which contains the most detailed discussion of the
facts and circumstances relevant to the pain and suffering determination. Schettl v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 14-0422V, 2019 WL 664493 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 22, 2019) (ruling determining a past
pain and suffering award of $200,000.00, and $10,000.00 per yearly for future pain and suffering). The final
award was made eleven months later in December 2021. Schettl v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-
0422V, 2021 WL 6502203 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 20, 2021) (awarding $200,000.00 for past/actual pain
and suffering and $40,750.00 for future/projected pain and suffering).
15 In subsequent briefing, Petitioner increased this amount based upon additional unreimbursed expenses
paid.
6

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 7 of 13
equipment recommended by his healthcare providers,” and $5,267.34 for 9,004 miles
driven to medical appointments, paid at a rate of $0.585 per mile. Id. The requested future
expenses are based upon a monthly amount of $205.54, representing $115.06 for
medications (Metaxalone, Lidocaine patches, Ibuprofen, and turmeric) and $90.48 for
mileage to and from his psychotherapist. Id. To document these expenses Petitioner
relies upon his affidavit, signed and notarized on December 21, 2022; a list of mileage
amounts and corresponding dates; a printout of potential co-pays that appears to have
been obtained from Medicare.gov; and a list of prescriptions, the origin of which is
unclear.16
Based upon the assertion that many of the symptoms Petitioner experienced in
February 2019 and later (more than three months post-vaccination) were not vaccine-
related, Respondent initially proposed $70,000.00 for past pain and suffering.
Respondent’s Brief Regarding Damages (“Opp.”) at 9, 11. He continues to maintain that
only $4,058.27 - of the $10,957.81 in out-of-pocket medical expenses and mileage
Petitioner seeks - are related to Petitioner’s SIRVA, but has not identified specifically the
expenses he believes should be paid. Id. at 2 n.1.
Emphasizing the lack of treating physician opinion related to the cause of these
new symptoms and at least one physician statement which undermines a causal link
(Opp. at 10)(the evidence available at that time), Respondent insisted that “[a]part from
some temporal overlap with [P]etitioner’s SIRVA symptoms, nothing in the medical
records suggested that [P]etitioner’s new symptoms were SIRVA-related or were caused
by the Prevnar vaccine.” Id. at 9. Characterizing Petitioner’s SIRVA as mild to moderate,
requiring only limited, non-surgical treatment (id. at 11), he proposed Bartholomew,
Sakovits, Coli, and Lambert17 – involving past pain and suffering awards ranging from
$67,000.00 to $73,000.00, as comparable cases. Opp. at 10 n.8. He.
Shortly after the parties provided their initial briefing, Petitioner requested that the
proceedings be suspended, and he be allowed to retain an expert to opine as to the cause
of his CRPS.18 Petitioner’s Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Obtain an Expert Report,
16 Along with an affidavit executed by his wife on December 2, 2022, this documentation was filed as
attachments to his damages brief at ECF Nos. 45-1 and 45-2.
17 Bartholomew v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1750V, 2020 WL 3639805 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
June 5, 2020) (awarding $67,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Sakowitz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (awarding $68,000.00 for past pain
and suffering); Coli v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0543V, 2022 WL 706682 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 4, 2022 (awarding $70,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Lambert v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-1335V, 2022 WL 1487253 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 29, 2022) (awarding $73,000.00 for past pain
and suffering).
18 He also submitted a video discussing his symptoms. See Portable Storage Disc or Drive, received Dec.
27, 2022.
7

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 8 of 13
filed Dec. 23, 2022, ECF No. 47. I granted Petitioner’s motion in part, instructing him to
retain an expert to opine on the extent of his sequela, including whether symptoms
attributable to CRPS can be linked to Petitioner’s SIRVA, but declining to stay the case.
Order, issued Jan. 27, 2023.
In May 2023, Petitioner filed updated medical records; another affidavit related to
his unreimbursed expenses; and an expert report, curriculum vitae (“CV”), and
accompanying medical literature from Enrique Aradillas-Lopez, M.D. Exs. 16-35, filed
May 18, 2023, ECF Nos. 50-51. In the report, Dr. Aradillas-Lopez opines that “all of Mr.
Miller’s symptoms correspond to the natural history of CRPS, and he meets the diagnostic
criteria.” Ex. 22 at 7. He adds that “Mr. Miller’s entire history of attempted treatments of
his left upper-arm pain, and the limited progress he achieved despite three discrete
attempts at physical therapy reveal a chronic condition.” Id. at 8. Although he
acknowledges Mr. Miller suffered from depression prior to vaccination (id. at 2), Dr.
Aradillas-Lopez emphasizes that condition is “common among patients with chronic pain”
(id. at 10).
After reviewing Dr. Aradillas-Lopez’s expert report, Respondent expressed a
desire to renew damages discussions in lieu of filing a responsive expert report. Status
Report, filed Aug. 8, 2023, ECF No. 54. On October 17, 2023, the parties informed me
that they had again reached an impasse. ECF No. 56.
Citing the expert opinion provided by Dr. Aradillas-Lopez, Petitioner reiterates his
position that his CRPS is sequelae of his SIRVA. Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s
Damages Brief (“Pet. Responsive Brief”) at 1-4. Insisting that his treatment has been
continuous, and his injury is permanent, he again requests a pain and suffering award of
$250,000.00. Id. at 4-7. He updates the amount he seeks for past unreimbursed expenses
to reflect $12,991.84 ($6,441.44 of which is for mileage) but proposes the same amount
- $2,466.48 per year for future expenses. Id. at 8.
Respondent has in reaction raised his proposed past pain and suffering award to
$95,000.00. Respondent’s Responsive Brief Regarding Damages (“Res. Responsive
Brief”) at 2. Although he “does not concede that [P]etitioner suffered CRPS or any other
neurologic condition as a stand-alone injury, separate from SIRVA,” Respondent
acknowledges that Petitioner may have suffered from CRPS symptoms that could be
linked to his SIRVA, or at a minimum are difficult to separate from those more obviously
SIRVA-related. Id. at 2 n.1.
Noting the almost two-year gap in treatment from August 2021 until May 2023, as
well as treating physician statements and testing showing Petitioner’s left-hand tremor
was mild, and may not be SIRVA-related, Respondent argues that there is no indication
8

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 9 of 13
that Petitioner’s “injury will result in permanent sequelae.” Res. Responsive Brief at 11.
He attempts to distinguish the Schettl decision cited by Petitioner, claiming that it involves
brachial neuritis, rather than a CRPS injury.19 Id. Instead, he proposes Vendiola and
Snyder20 - CRPS cases featuring proffered past pain and suffering awards of $99,785.39
and $115,000.00, respectively.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact his
awareness of his injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole to include the filed
medical records, affidavits, and sworn declarations and all assertions made by the parties
in written documents. 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 records reveals that Mr. Miller suffered a
moderate SIRVA injury, accompanied by traditional SIRVA symptoms, as well as
sequelae attributable to the development of CRPS. Although he slowly gained relief from
his traditional SIRVA sequelae following his third attempt at PT (attending more than 50
PT sessions from July 2019 through September 2020), Petitioner continues to experience
ongoing, albeit milder CRPS sequelae. Based upon statements from his treating
physicians theorizing that his CRPS sequelae could be linked to his SIRVA, as well as
Dr. Aradillas-Lopez’s opinion as stated in his expert report, I find that all these symptoms
should be considered SIRVA-related.
During the initial seven months of his injury, from early November 2018 through
mid-June 2019, Petitioner consistently described pain at levels fluctuating from three to
seven. When he first sought treatment at an urgent care facility five weeks post-
vaccination on December 15, 2018, Petitioner reported swelling and left shoulder pain at
a level of five out of ten. Ex. 3 at 5, ECF No. 28-4.21 At his second visit with his primary
19 It is important to note that the rulings and decisions in Schettl state compensation was awarded for CRPS
determined to be vaccine-caused, not brachial neuritis. See Schettl, 2019 WL 664493; Schettl, 2021 WL
6502203.
20 Vendiola, 2021 WL 965667; Snyder v. Sec’y of Heath & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0122V, 2019 WL 7597449
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 13, 2019).
21 Because there was some overlap and confusion regarding the exhibits in this case, I will cite to the
corresponding docket number when first citing any medical record.
9

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 10 of 13
care provider (“PCP”) on January 10, 2019, he also complained of limited ROM,
confirmed during his physical examination. Ex. 4 at 94-95, ECF No. 28-5. Oral steroids
prescribed during this time failed to alleviate Petitioner’s pain.22 And an MRI performed
on February 8, 2019, revealed AC joint arthropathy consisting of mild rotator cuff bursitis
and bursal-sided fraying, “[s]uspected remote humeral avulsion[23] of the inferior
glenohumeral joint, [and] [m]oderate glenohumeral joint degeneration, with cystic
changes most prominent in the region of the humeral attachment.” Ex. 12 at 5, ECF No.
28-10.
At his third PCP visit in mid-February 2019 (approximately three months post-
vaccination), Petitioner recounted worsening pain and the development of significant vein
prominence. Ex. 4 at 87. After attending two PT sessions in March 2019, he chose to
discontinue care until he met again with his vascular specialist. Ex 10 at 5. Id. At his next
visit with his vascular specialist in May 2019, Petitioner reported worsening pain and
depression, along with a new onset of hand tremors. Ex. 5 at 29, ECF No. 28-6.
In addition to these visits with his PCP and vascular specialist, Petitioner attended
multiple visits with an orthopedist, pain specialist, and neurologist. At his first visit with his
orthopedist in March 2019, Petitioner reported intermittent, dull, sharp, throbbing, achy,
and shooting pain, ranging from three to seven. Ex. 7 at 1, ECF No. 28-8. Due to the
vascular changes Petitioner was experiencing, the orthopedist opined that he may be
developing CRPS. Id. at 3. After Petitioner reported worsening symptoms at his next
orthopedic appointment in April 2019, the orthopedist administered a steroid injection,
prescribed Neurontin,24 and referred him to a pain specialist for treatment of CRPS. Id. at
4-6.
Petitioner appears to have gained little to no relief from the steroid injection, as he
again reported sharp, aching pain ranging from four to seven when first seen by the pain
specialist. Ex. 1A25 at 52, ECF No. 39-3. However, he gained significant pain relief,
especially in the lower arm, from a left stellate ganglion block performed on June 11,
22 Although the PCP record from Petitioner’s December 2018 visit contains conflicting entries, stating that
the prescribed prednisone “[wa]s not working” and “has improved him significantly” (Ex. 4 at 101), the record
from his next visit on January 10, 2019, states “[t]he steroids have not seem [sic] to help very much in
regards to pain, swelling, range of motion” (id. at 94). Thus, Petitioner does not appear to have gained
much relief from this medication.
23 Avulsion is “the ripping or tearing away of a part either accidently or surgically.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED
MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S”) at 184 (32th ed. 2012).
24 Neurontin is a “trademark for preparations of gabapentin.” DORLAND’S at 1268.
25 Because Petitioner mistakenly labeled the pain specialist medical records as a second Exhibit 1, I am
redesignating it as Exhibit 1A.
10

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 11 of 13
2019. Id. at 33 (noting pain at a level of two to ten prior to the procedure and zero pain
thereafter). By the next day, Petitioner estimated his pain to be two out of ten, adding that
he had 90 percent relief in his lower arm. Id. at 30. These results helped confirm the
diagnosis of CRPS. Id. at 32. A nerve conduction study ordered by Petitioner’s
neurologist, and performed in August 2019, revealed findings that may be explained by a
diagnosis of CRPS. Ex. 9 at 26, ECF No. 28-10.
Petitioner continued to make good, albeit slow, progress from PT that was initiated
on July 19, 2019. Although he reported a current pain severity of six (with a range from
two to eight) at his first PT session, his current level had improved to two (with a range
from one to six) by his 19th session and recertification on September 24, 2019. Compare
Ex. 626 at 1, ECF No. 28-7 with id. at 49. After a brief break in PT beginning in March
2020, he returned for nine additional sessions from July through September 2020. Ex. 6
at 151 (41st session on March 13, 2020), 154 (June 2020 discharge), 213 (51st session
on September 17, 2020). In mid-September 2020, he reported current pain of two, with a
range from one to four. Id. at 208.
In 2020, Petitioner also continued to seek treatment from his vascular specialist
and neurologist, reporting continuing and worsening vein prominence and tremors. Ex. 5
at 61 (visit with the vascular specialist on February 7, 2020); Ex. 9 at 11 (neurologist visit
on August 21, 2020). Additionally, he began attending therapy for his depression in mid-
January 2020. Ex. 827 at 4, ECF No. 28-9.
Thereafter, Petitioner sought only a minimal amount of medical care, and it is
important to note that this care occurred after the vaccine claim was filed. Petitioner
attended 10 additional PT in July through September 2021, reporting pain levels between
three and seven. E.g., Ex. 4A at 6. He recounted improvement in his hand tremors after
performing his home exercise and attending massage therapy, continued difficulty
sleeping, and a desire to stop taking pain medication in the future. Id. In May 2023,
Petitioner was prescribed medication for his hand tremors. Ex. 19 at 2-3.
Although I have determined that Petitioner’s CRPS symptoms, including his vein
prominence and tremors, should be considered sequelae of his SIRVA, his injury was not
as severe as that suffered by the Schettl petitioner. Only 44 years old when injured, the
Schettl petitioner suffered symptoms such as burning pain that made her feel like she
26 Although this exhibit is bates stamped and paginated using both Exhibits 6 and 13, it is clearly meant to
be designated as Exhibit 6, and will be referenced as such. See Exhibit List, filed Nov. 5, 2021, ECF 28-1.
27 Although this exhibit also is bates stamped and paginated as both Exhibits 8 and 13, and referred to as
Exhibit 13 in Petitioner’s initial brief (Brief at 5), it appears it was meant to be designated as Exhibit 8. See
Exhibit List, ECF No. 28-1. Petitioner also refers to the exhibit as Exhibit 8 in his responsive brief. Pet.
Responsive Brief at 4.
11

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 12 of 13
was being punched in the arm, sleep disturbances, and sensitivity to touch and
temperature for more than seven years at the time of her award. Schettl, 2019 WL
664493, at *2, 10-11. Because Petitioner’s symptoms were less severe, his past pain and
suffering award should be less - not more as Petitioner contends. However, this case
does provide an upper limit for Petitioner’s award.
Likewise, the CRPS comparable cases Respondent cited in his responsive brief28
provide incomplete guidance for what Petitioner’s award should be. Although unclear from
the decisions issued because those awards were based upon an agreed-upon proffer,29
they involved injuries which required significantly less treatment than Petitioner’s did.
Instead, I find several non-surgical SIRVA cases - Dawson-Savard, Binette and
Danielson30 - helpful. They involved past awards ranging from $110,000.00 to
$130,000.00, with future awards of $250.00 to $1,000.00 per year. Although none also
involved CRPS secondary to a SIRVA, these petitioners all suffered from moderate to
severe SIRVA injuries that continued for several years despite extensive, non-surgical,
treatment with a prognosis that included the strong possibility of continuing sequelae.
Danielson, 2020 WL 8271642, at *3-5; Dawson-Savard, 2020 WL 4719291, at *3-4;
Binette, 2019 WL 1552620, at *13-15. In particular, the Binette and Dawson-Savard
petitioners suffered similar injuries. Because Petitioner struggled with the added difficulty
of having developed CRPS, and the accompanying uncertainty related to his initial
diagnosis, as well as the likelihood that his symptoms will progress, I will award a slightly
greater amount for both his past and future pain and suffering. I find an award of
$140,000.00, plus $1,500.00 per year, to be appropriate.
V. Appropriate Compensation for Unreimbursed Expenses
One of the reasons why the amount for Petitioner’s future pain and suffering is
slightly lower than I would otherwise award is due to the good results he has obtained
from medication and therapy. Thus, I find the reimbursement of these costs (including the
mileage to and from his therapist) to be warranted. And many of his past expenses appear
28 Due to Respondent’s acknowledgement that Petitioner “may be entitled to damages for CRPS Symptoms
stemming from SIRVA” (Res. Responsive Brief at 2 n.1), the first group of cases he initially cited, which do
not involve any CRPS symptoms, are clearly inapposite. Id. at 10, 10-11 n.8 (citing Bartholomew, 2020 WL
3639805; Sakowitz, 2020 WL 3729420; Coli, 2022 WL 706682; Lambert, 2022 WL 1487253)).
29 See Vendiola, 2021 WL 965667; Snyder, 2019 WL 7597449.
30 Danielson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1878V, 2020 WL 8271642 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec.
29, 2020) (awarding $110,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $250.00 per year for future); Dawson-
Savard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1238V, 2020 WL 4719291 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 14,
2020) (awarding $130,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $500.00 per year for future); Binette v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0731V, 2019 WL 1552620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019) (awarding
$130,000.00 in past pain and suffering and $1,000.00 per year for future).
12

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/11/25 Page 13 of 13
to be similarly appropriate. However, Petitioner has not provided clear evidence of the
costs that he actually paid in this case,31 and Respondent has not clearly stated his
objections to some of these costs. Thus, I am instructing the parties to engage in further
damages discussions to determine if they can reach an informal agreement as to past
and future unreimbursed expenses.
In addition, the parties should attempt to agree upon the appropriate net present
value for the future pain and suffering award component.32 In doing so, they should utilize
the Social Security Administration’s calculation of Petitioner’s life expectancy, which can
be found at https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi (last visited Aug. 27, 2025). See
Danielson, 2020 WL 8271642, * 5 n.10. And in determining the appropriate discount rate,
the parties should utilize the multipronged approach previously employed in Dillenbeck.
See Joyce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1882V, 2024 WL 1235409, at *2-3
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 20, 2024) (citing Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs,
No. 17-0428V, 2019 WL 4072069, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2019)).
Conclusion
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for reasons set
forth in this ruling, I find that $140,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering. Additionally, he is entitled
to $1,500.00 per year for a future award.
The parties shall file a joint status report updating me on their efforts to
inform ally resolve the question of past and future expenses and to reduce all future
amounts to net present value by no later than Tuesday, September 30, 2025. In the
status report, they should state whether they believe an informal agreement
regarding the remainder of damages in this case can be reached, and should
estimate the amount of time needed to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
31 Although the lists obtained from Medicaire.com are helpful, there is nothing indicating they were for
Petitioner and payments which were ultimately required. More helpful documentation would be billing
records from Petitioner’s treating physicians showing Petitioner’s payment of out-of-pocket expenses.
32 See Section 15(f)(4)(A) (requiring reduction to net present value for future compensation); Youngblood
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir.1994) (requiring application of the statutory
cap (Section 15(a)(4)) before any projected pain and suffering award is reduced to net present value).
13

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01225-2
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-30
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/27/2025 ) regarding 59 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 1 of 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1225V
MICHAEL CALVIN MILLER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 27, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Dylan Wilbanks, Wilbanks Law Firm, P.C., Commerce, GA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
PARTIAL RULING ON DAMAGES1
On September 18, 2020, Michael Calvin Miller filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following the receipt of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on
November 9, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 23-24. After Respondent conceded entitlement,
the parties were unable to resolve damages on their own,3 so I ordered briefing on the
matter.
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 (2018).
3 Approximately three months after I determined Petitioner was entitled to compensation, the parties
informed me that they had reached an impasse in their damages discussions and requested that I set a
briefing schedule. Status Report, filed Nov. 4, 2022, ECF No. 41.
.

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 2 of 13
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $140,000.00 for past pain and suffering, plus $1,500.00 per
year for future pain and suffering. The remaining damages categories to be decided
and net present value of any compensation attributable to future amounts require
additional input from the parties before they can be resolved.
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
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
2

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 3 of 13
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).
Graves 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 SPU4
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of July 1, 2025, 4,983 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU more
than ten years before. Compensation has been awarded in the vast majority of cases
(4,817), with the remaining 166 cases dismissed.
2,744 of the compensated SPU SIRVA cases were the result of a ruling that the
petitioner was entitled to compensation (as opposed to an informal settlement), and
therefore reflect full compensation.5 In only 310 of these cases, however, was the amount
of damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision.6 As I have previously
4 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.
5 The remaining 2,073 compensated SIRVA cases were resolved via stipulated agreement of the parties
without a prior ruling on entitlement. These agreements are often described as “litigative risk” settlements,
and thus represent a reduced percentage of the compensation which otherwise would be awarded.
Because multiple competing factors may cause the parties to settle a case (with some having little to do
with the merits of an underlying claim), these awards from settled cases do not constitute a reliable gauge
of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded in other SPU SIRVA cases.
6 The rest of these cases resulting in damages after concession were either reflective of a proffer by
Respondent (2,403 cases) or stipulation (31 cases). Although all proposed amounts denote some form of
agreement reached by the parties, those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than
instances in which Respondent formally acknowledges that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages.
3

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 4 of 13
stated, the written decisions setting forth such determinations, prepared by neutral judicial
officers (the special masters themselves), provide the most reliable guidance in deciding
what similarly-situated claimants should also receive.7
The data for all categories of damages decisions described above reflect the
expected differences in outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated8
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 310 2,403 31 2,073
Lowest $25,000.00 $4,000.00 $37,013.60 $1,000.00
1st Quartile $67,020.04 $60,000.00 $90,000.00 $30,000.00
Median $91,290.04 $79,444.74 $115,772.83 $50,000.00
3rd Quartile $125,000.00 $106,293.26 $161,501.20 $75,000.00
Largest $1,569,302.82 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 310 SPU SIRVA cases in which damages were determined via reasoned
decision, compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from
$25,000.00 to $215,000.00, with $90,000.00 as the median amount. Only ten of these
cases involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from
$250.00 to $1,500.00.9 In one of these cases, the future pain and suffering award was
limited by the statutory pain and suffering cap.10
7 Of course, even though all independently-settled damages issues (whether by stipulation/settlement or
proffer) must still be approved by a special master, such determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number of such cases,
these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of awards received overall in
comparable cases.” Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & 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).
8 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
9 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).
10 Joyce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1882V, 2024 WL 1235409, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 20, 2024) (applying the $250,000.00 statutory cap for actual and future pain and suffering set forth in
Section 15(a)(4) before reducing the future award to net present value as required by Section 15(f)(4)(A));
see Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir.1994) (requiring the
4

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 5 of 13
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 nine cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to a past pain and suffering award of
$250,000.00, the maximum amount allowed under the Vaccine Act. Petitioner’s Damages
Brief (“Brief”) at 11; see Section 15(a)(4) (statutory limit for actual and projected pain and
suffering). “If . . . his past pain and suffering does not merit that cap, he asks that an
annual amount be prescribed to his future pain and suffering.” Brief at 11. However, he
does not propose a yearly amount.
When arguing for this maximum award, Petitioner contends that “his pain rating
through the years has consistently ranged between three and seven on the widely-used
ten-point scale.” Brief at 9. Referencing his treating physicians’ warning “that his condition
application of the statutory cap before any projected pain and suffering award is reduced to net present
value).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 6 of 13
would be progressive,” he reports a continuing tremor and weakness in his left hand which
he characterizes as debilitating. Id. He adds that, in the last year, he has experienced “the
‘mirroring’ of this symptom that is common to CRPS.[11]” Brief at 9. Insisting that he
“consistently sought treatment for his condition and continues to do so” (id. at 9), he
asserts that he “will continue to suffer significant pain that affects the quality of life for the
rest of his life[12]” (id. at 9-10).
Maintaining that “CRPS is a recognized sequela of SIRVA,[13]” Petitioner favorably
compares his facts and circumstances to those suffered by the petitioner in Schettl14 – a
case involving a CRPS injury, past pain and suffering award of $200,000.00, and future
award of $10,000.00 per year. Brief at 10. He specifically mentions the Schettl petitioner’s
difficulties sleeping, engaging in physical activities, socializing, and battling depression;
lack of pain resolution from a ganglion nerve block; and similar “‘mirroring’ of symptoms
in her other side.” Id.
Petitioner also seeks $10,957.81 for past expenses, and $2,466.48 per year for
future.15 Brief at 11. The past expenses are comprised of “$5,690.47 paid either for co-
pays to his providers, or for prescription medication, or for over-the-counter products, or
11 CRPS stands for “complex regional pain syndrome.” MEDICAL ABBREVIATIONS at 152 (16th ed. 2020).
12 Petitioner calculates his life expectancy as being 13.08 years. Brief at 10 n.1.
13 To support this assertion, Petitioner cites three cases - Thompson, Vendiola, and Tucker-Corley. Brief at
10 n.2. However, Thompson involved an informal settlement without any entitlement determination.
Thompson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-0422V, 2022 WL 624024 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
27, 2022); see supra note 12 (for further explanation regarding this type of case resolution). Vendiola and
Tucker-Corley were cases involving allegations of brachial plexopathy and SIRVA, respectively, following
receipt of flu vaccines. In both cases, Respondent opposed entitlement based upon the alleged injury but
conceded entitlement based upon a causal connection between the flu vaccine and CRPS injury. Vendiola
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1780V, 2020 WL 7238475 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 5, 2020);
Tucker-Tucker-Corley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1797V, 2022 WL 359027 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 27, 2022. In both cases, damages were then awarded based on Respondent’s proffer, with the
Vendiola petitioner receiving $120,000.00 in damages ($99,785.39 of which was attributed to pain and
suffering without any past or future designation) and the Tucker-Corley petitioner receiving $62,500.00 for
pain and suffering (again without any past or future designation). Vendiola v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-1780V, 2021 WL 965667 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 8, 2021); Tucker-Tucker-Corley v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1797V, 2022 WL 17968801 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 26, 2022).
14 Petitioner cites the prior ruling on pain and suffering which contains the most detailed discussion of the
facts and circumstances relevant to the pain and suffering determination. Schettl v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 14-0422V, 2019 WL 664493 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 22, 2019) (ruling determining a past
pain and suffering award of $200,000.00, and $10,000.00 per yearly for future pain and suffering). The final
award was made eleven months later in December 2021. Schettl v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-
0422V, 2021 WL 6502203 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 20, 2021) (awarding $200,000.00 for past/actual pain
and suffering and $40,750.00 for future/projected pain and suffering).
15 In subsequent briefing, Petitioner increased this amount based upon additional unreimbursed expenses
paid.
6

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 7 of 13
equipment recommended by his healthcare providers,” and $5,267.34 for 9,004 miles
driven to medical appointments, paid at a rate of $0.585 per mile. Id. The requested future
expenses are based upon a monthly amount of $205.54, representing $115.06 for
medications (Metaxalone, Lidocaine patches, Ibuprofen, and turmeric) and $90.48 for
mileage to and from his psychotherapist. Id. To document these expenses Petitioner
relies upon his affidavit, signed and notarized on December 21, 2022; a list of mileage
amounts and corresponding dates; a printout of potential co-pays that appears to have
been obtained from Medicare.gov; and a list of prescriptions, the origin of which is
unclear.16
Based upon the assertion that many of the symptoms Petitioner experienced in
February 2019 and later (more than three months post-vaccination) were not vaccine-
related, Respondent initially proposed $70,000.00 for past pain and suffering.
Respondent’s Brief Regarding Damages (“Opp.”) at 9, 11. He continues to maintain that
only $4,058.27 - of the $10,957.81 in out-of-pocket medical expenses and mileage
Petitioner seeks - are related to Petitioner’s SIRVA, but has not identified specifically the
expenses he believes should be paid. Id. at 2 n.1.
Emphasizing the lack of treating physician opinion related to the cause of these
new symptoms and at least one physician statement which undermines a causal link
(Opp. at 10)(the evidence available at that time), Respondent insisted that “[a]part from
some temporal overlap with [P]etitioner’s SIRVA symptoms, nothing in the medical
records suggested that [P]etitioner’s new symptoms were SIRVA-related or were caused
by the Prevnar vaccine.” Id. at 9. Characterizing Petitioner’s SIRVA as mild to moderate,
requiring only limited, non-surgical treatment (id. at 11), he proposed Bartholomew,
Sakovits, Coli, and Lambert17 – involving past pain and suffering awards ranging from
$67,000.00 to $73,000.00, as comparable cases. Opp. at 10 n.8. He.
Shortly after the parties provided their initial briefing, Petitioner requested that the
proceedings be suspended, and he be allowed to retain an expert to opine as to the cause
of his CRPS.18 Petitioner’s Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Obtain an Expert Report,
16 Along with an affidavit executed by his wife on December 2, 2022, this documentation was filed as
attachments to his damages brief at ECF Nos. 45-1 and 45-2.
17 Bartholomew v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1750V, 2020 WL 3639805 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
June 5, 2020) (awarding $67,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Sakowitz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (awarding $68,000.00 for past pain
and suffering); Coli v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0543V, 2022 WL 706682 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 4, 2022 (awarding $70,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Lambert v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-1335V, 2022 WL 1487253 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 29, 2022) (awarding $73,000.00 for past pain
and suffering).
18 He also submitted a video discussing his symptoms. See Portable Storage Disc or Drive, received Dec.
27, 2022.
7

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 8 of 13
filed Dec. 23, 2022, ECF No. 47. I granted Petitioner’s motion in part, instructing him to
retain an expert to opine on the extent of his sequela, including whether symptoms
attributable to CRPS can be linked to Petitioner’s SIRVA, but declining to stay the case.
Order, issued Jan. 27, 2023.
In May 2023, Petitioner filed updated medical records; another affidavit related to
his unreimbursed expenses; and an expert report, curriculum vitae (“CV”), and
accompanying medical literature from Enrique Aradillas-Lopez, M.D. Exs. 16-35, filed
May 18, 2023, ECF Nos. 50-51. In the report, Dr. Aradillas-Lopez opines that “all of Mr.
Miller’s symptoms correspond to the natural history of CRPS, and he meets the diagnostic
criteria.” Ex. 22 at 7. He adds that “Mr. Miller’s entire history of attempted treatments of
his left upper-arm pain, and the limited progress he achieved despite three discrete
attempts at physical therapy reveal a chronic condition.” Id. at 8. Although he
acknowledges Mr. Miller suffered from depression prior to vaccination (id. at 2), Dr.
Aradillas-Lopez emphasizes that condition is “common among patients with chronic pain”
(id. at 10).
After reviewing Dr. Aradillas-Lopez’s expert report, Respondent expressed a
desire to renew damages discussions in lieu of filing a responsive expert report. Status
Report, filed Aug. 8, 2023, ECF No. 54. On October 17, 2023, the parties informed me
that they had again reached an impasse. ECF No. 56.
Citing the expert opinion provided by Dr. Aradillas-Lopez, Petitioner reiterates his
position that his CRPS is sequelae of his SIRVA. Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s
Damages Brief (“Pet. Responsive Brief”) at 1-4. Insisting that his treatment has been
continuous, and his injury is permanent, he again requests a pain and suffering award of
$250,000.00. Id. at 4-7. He updates the amount he seeks for past unreimbursed expenses
to reflect $12,991.84 ($6,441.44 of which is for mileage) but proposes the same amount
- $2,466.48 per year for future expenses. Id. at 8.
Respondent has in reaction raised his proposed past pain and suffering award to
$95,000.00. Respondent’s Responsive Brief Regarding Damages (“Res. Responsive
Brief”) at 2. Although he “does not concede that [P]etitioner suffered CRPS or any other
neurologic condition as a stand-alone injury, separate from SIRVA,” Respondent
acknowledges that Petitioner may have suffered from CRPS symptoms that could be
linked to his SIRVA, or at a minimum are difficult to separate from those more obviously
SIRVA-related. Id. at 2 n.1.
Noting the almost two-year gap in treatment from August 2021 until May 2023, as
well as treating physician statements and testing showing Petitioner’s left-hand tremor
was mild, and may not be SIRVA-related, Respondent argues that there is no indication
8

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 9 of 13
that Petitioner’s “injury will result in permanent sequelae.” Res. Responsive Brief at 11.
He attempts to distinguish the Schettl decision cited by Petitioner, claiming that it involves
brachial neuritis, rather than a CRPS injury.19 Id. Instead, he proposes Vendiola and
Snyder20 - CRPS cases featuring proffered past pain and suffering awards of $99,785.39
and $115,000.00, respectively.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact his
awareness of his injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole to include the filed
medical records, affidavits, and sworn declarations and all assertions made by the parties
in written documents. 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 records reveals that Mr. Miller suffered a
moderate SIRVA injury, accompanied by traditional SIRVA symptoms, as well as
sequelae attributable to the development of CRPS. Although he slowly gained relief from
his traditional SIRVA sequelae following his third attempt at PT (attending more than 50
PT sessions from July 2019 through September 2020), Petitioner continues to experience
ongoing, albeit milder CRPS sequelae. Based upon statements from his treating
physicians theorizing that his CRPS sequelae could be linked to his SIRVA, as well as
Dr. Aradillas-Lopez’s opinion as stated in his expert report, I find that all these symptoms
should be considered SIRVA-related.
During the initial seven months of his injury, from early November 2018 through
mid-June 2019, Petitioner consistently described pain at levels fluctuating from three to
seven. When he first sought treatment at an urgent care facility five weeks post-
vaccination on December 15, 2018, Petitioner reported swelling and left shoulder pain at
a level of five out of ten. Ex. 3 at 5, ECF No. 28-4.21 At his second visit with his primary
19 It is important to note that the rulings and decisions in Schettl state compensation was awarded for CRPS
determined to be vaccine-caused, not brachial neuritis. See Schettl, 2019 WL 664493; Schettl, 2021 WL
6502203.
20 Vendiola, 2021 WL 965667; Snyder v. Sec’y of Heath & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0122V, 2019 WL 7597449
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 13, 2019).
21 Because there was some overlap and confusion regarding the exhibits in this case, I will cite to the
corresponding docket number when first citing any medical record.
9

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 10 of 13
care provider (“PCP”) on January 10, 2019, he also complained of limited ROM,
confirmed during his physical examination. Ex. 4 at 94-95, ECF No. 28-5. Oral steroids
prescribed during this time failed to alleviate Petitioner’s pain.22 And an MRI performed
on February 8, 2019, revealed AC joint arthropathy consisting of mild rotator cuff bursitis
and bursal-sided fraying, “[s]uspected remote humeral avulsion[23] of the inferior
glenohumeral joint, [and] [m]oderate glenohumeral joint degeneration, with cystic
changes most prominent in the region of the humeral attachment.” Ex. 12 at 5, ECF No.
28-10.
At his third PCP visit in mid-February 2019 (approximately three months post-
vaccination), Petitioner recounted worsening pain and the development of significant vein
prominence. Ex. 4 at 87. After attending two PT sessions in March 2019, he chose to
discontinue care until he met again with his vascular specialist. Ex 10 at 5. Id. At his next
visit with his vascular specialist in May 2019, Petitioner reported worsening pain and
depression, along with a new onset of hand tremors. Ex. 5 at 29, ECF No. 28-6.
In addition to these visits with his PCP and vascular specialist, Petitioner attended
multiple visits with an orthopedist, pain specialist, and neurologist. At his first visit with his
orthopedist in March 2019, Petitioner reported intermittent, dull, sharp, throbbing, achy,
and shooting pain, ranging from three to seven. Ex. 7 at 1, ECF No. 28-8. Due to the
vascular changes Petitioner was experiencing, the orthopedist opined that he may be
developing CRPS. Id. at 3. After Petitioner reported worsening symptoms at his next
orthopedic appointment in April 2019, the orthopedist administered a steroid injection,
prescribed Neurontin,24 and referred him to a pain specialist for treatment of CRPS. Id. at
4-6.
Petitioner appears to have gained little to no relief from the steroid injection, as he
again reported sharp, aching pain ranging from four to seven when first seen by the pain
specialist. Ex. 1A25 at 52, ECF No. 39-3. However, he gained significant pain relief,
especially in the lower arm, from a left stellate ganglion block performed on June 11,
22 Although the PCP record from Petitioner’s December 2018 visit contains conflicting entries, stating that
the prescribed prednisone “[wa]s not working” and “has improved him significantly” (Ex. 4 at 101), the record
from his next visit on January 10, 2019, states “[t]he steroids have not seem [sic] to help very much in
regards to pain, swelling, range of motion” (id. at 94). Thus, Petitioner does not appear to have gained
much relief from this medication.
23 Avulsion is “the ripping or tearing away of a part either accidently or surgically.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED
MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S”) at 184 (32th ed. 2012).
24 Neurontin is a “trademark for preparations of gabapentin.” DORLAND’S at 1268.
25 Because Petitioner mistakenly labeled the pain specialist medical records as a second Exhibit 1, I am
redesignating it as Exhibit 1A.
10

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 11 of 13
2019. Id. at 33 (noting pain at a level of two to ten prior to the procedure and zero pain
thereafter). By the next day, Petitioner estimated his pain to be two out of ten, adding that
he had 90 percent relief in his lower arm. Id. at 30. These results helped confirm the
diagnosis of CRPS. Id. at 32. A nerve conduction study ordered by Petitioner’s
neurologist, and performed in August 2019, revealed findings that may be explained by a
diagnosis of CRPS. Ex. 9 at 26, ECF No. 28-10.
Petitioner continued to make good, albeit slow, progress from PT that was initiated
on July 19, 2019. Although he reported a current pain severity of six (with a range from
two to eight) at his first PT session, his current level had improved to two (with a range
from one to six) by his 19th session and recertification on September 24, 2019. Compare
Ex. 626 at 1, ECF No. 28-7 with id. at 49. After a brief break in PT beginning in March
2020, he returned for nine additional sessions from July through September 2020. Ex. 6
at 151 (41st session on March 13, 2020), 154 (June 2020 discharge), 213 (51st session
on September 17, 2020). In mid-September 2020, he reported current pain of two, with a
range from one to four. Id. at 208.
In 2020, Petitioner also continued to seek treatment from his vascular specialist
and neurologist, reporting continuing and worsening vein prominence and tremors. Ex. 5
at 61 (visit with the vascular specialist on February 7, 2020); Ex. 9 at 11 (neurologist visit
on August 21, 2020). Additionally, he began attending therapy for his depression in mid-
January 2020. Ex. 827 at 4, ECF No. 28-9.
Thereafter, Petitioner sought only a minimal amount of medical care, and it is
important to note that this care occurred after the vaccine claim was filed. Petitioner
attended 10 additional PT in July through September 2021, reporting pain levels between
three and seven. E.g., Ex. 4A at 6. He recounted improvement in his hand tremors after
performing his home exercise and attending massage therapy, continued difficulty
sleeping, and a desire to stop taking pain medication in the future. Id. In May 2023,
Petitioner was prescribed medication for his hand tremors. Ex. 19 at 2-3.
Although I have determined that Petitioner’s CRPS symptoms, including his vein
prominence and tremors, should be considered sequelae of his SIRVA, his injury was not
as severe as that suffered by the Schettl petitioner. Only 44 years old when injured, the
Schettl petitioner suffered symptoms such as burning pain that made her feel like she
26 Although this exhibit is bates stamped and paginated using both Exhibits 6 and 13, it is clearly meant to
be designated as Exhibit 6, and will be referenced as such. See Exhibit List, filed Nov. 5, 2021, ECF 28-1.
27 Although this exhibit also is bates stamped and paginated as both Exhibits 8 and 13, and referred to as
Exhibit 13 in Petitioner’s initial brief (Brief at 5), it appears it was meant to be designated as Exhibit 8. See
Exhibit List, ECF No. 28-1. Petitioner also refers to the exhibit as Exhibit 8 in his responsive brief. Pet.
Responsive Brief at 4.
11

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 12 of 13
was being punched in the arm, sleep disturbances, and sensitivity to touch and
temperature for more than seven years at the time of her award. Schettl, 2019 WL
664493, at *2, 10-11. Because Petitioner’s symptoms were less severe, his past pain and
suffering award should be less - not more as Petitioner contends. However, this case
does provide an upper limit for Petitioner’s award.
Likewise, the CRPS comparable cases Respondent cited in his responsive brief28
provide incomplete guidance for what Petitioner’s award should be. Although unclear from
the decisions issued because those awards were based upon an agreed-upon proffer,29
they involved injuries which required significantly less treatment than Petitioner’s did.
Instead, I find several non-surgical SIRVA cases - Dawson-Savard, Binette and
Danielson30 - helpful. They involved past awards ranging from $110,000.00 to
$130,000.00, with future awards of $250.00 to $1,000.00 per year. Although none also
involved CRPS secondary to a SIRVA, these petitioners all suffered from moderate to
severe SIRVA injuries that continued for several years despite extensive, non-surgical,
treatment with a prognosis that included the strong possibility of continuing sequelae.
Danielson, 2020 WL 8271642, at *3-5; Dawson-Savard, 2020 WL 4719291, at *3-4;
Binette, 2019 WL 1552620, at *13-15. In particular, the Binette and Dawson-Savard
petitioners suffered similar injuries. Because Petitioner struggled with the added difficulty
of having developed CRPS, and the accompanying uncertainty related to his initial
diagnosis, as well as the likelihood that his symptoms will progress, I will award a slightly
greater amount for both his past and future pain and suffering. I find an award of
$140,000.00, plus $1,500.00 per year, to be appropriate.
V. Appropriate Compensation for Unreimbursed Expenses
One of the reasons why the amount for Petitioner’s future pain and suffering is
slightly lower than I would otherwise award is due to the good results he has obtained
from medication and therapy. Thus, I find the reimbursement of these costs (including the
mileage to and from his therapist) to be warranted. And many of his past expenses appear
28 Due to Respondent’s acknowledgement that Petitioner “may be entitled to damages for CRPS Symptoms
stemming from SIRVA” (Res. Responsive Brief at 2 n.1), the first group of cases he initially cited, which do
not involve any CRPS symptoms, are clearly inapposite. Id. at 10, 10-11 n.8 (citing Bartholomew, 2020 WL
3639805; Sakowitz, 2020 WL 3729420; Coli, 2022 WL 706682; Lambert, 2022 WL 1487253)).
29 See Vendiola, 2021 WL 965667; Snyder, 2019 WL 7597449.
30 Danielson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1878V, 2020 WL 8271642 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec.
29, 2020) (awarding $110,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $250.00 per year for future); Dawson-
Savard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1238V, 2020 WL 4719291 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 14,
2020) (awarding $130,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $500.00 per year for future); Binette v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0731V, 2019 WL 1552620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019) (awarding
$130,000.00 in past pain and suffering and $1,000.00 per year for future).
12

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 62 Filed 09/30/25 Page 13 of 13
to be similarly appropriate. However, Petitioner has not provided clear evidence of the
costs that he actually paid in this case,31 and Respondent has not clearly stated his
objections to some of these costs. Thus, I am instructing the parties to engage in further
damages discussions to determine if they can reach an informal agreement as to past
and future unreimbursed expenses.
In addition, the parties should attempt to agree upon the appropriate net present
value for the future pain and suffering award component.32 In doing so, they should utilize
the Social Security Administration’s calculation of Petitioner’s life expectancy, which can
be found at https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi (last visited Aug. 27, 2025). See
Danielson, 2020 WL 8271642, * 5 n.10. And in determining the appropriate discount rate,
the parties should utilize the multipronged approach previously employed in Dillenbeck.
See Joyce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1882V, 2024 WL 1235409, at *2-3
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 20, 2024) (citing Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs,
No. 17-0428V, 2019 WL 4072069, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2019)).
Conclusion
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for reasons set
forth in this ruling, I find that $140,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering. Additionally, he is entitled
to $1,500.00 per year for a future award.
The parties shall file a joint status report updating me on their efforts to
inform ally resolve the question of past and future expenses and to reduce all future
amounts to net present value by no later than Tuesday, September 30, 2025. In the
status report, they should state whether they believe an informal agreement
regarding the remainder of damages in this case can be reached, and should
estimate the amount of time needed to do so.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
31 Although the lists obtained from Medicaire.com are helpful, there is nothing indicating they were for
Petitioner and payments which were ultimately required. More helpful documentation would be billing
records from Petitioner’s treating physicians showing Petitioner’s payment of out-of-pocket expenses.
32 See Section 15(f)(4)(A) (requiring reduction to net present value for future compensation); Youngblood
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir.1994) (requiring application of the statutory
cap (Section 15(a)(4)) before any projected pain and suffering award is reduced to net present value).
13

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01225-3
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-23
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/22/2026 ) regarding 66 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 70 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1225V
MICHAEL CALVIN MILLER,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 22, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Dylan Wilbanks, Wilbanks Law Firm, P.C., Commerce, GA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 18, 2020, Michael Calvin Miller 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following the receipt of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine on
November 9, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 23-24. After Respondent conceded entitlement,
the parties were unable to resolve damages on their own.3 Following expert evidence and
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 On July 27, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report conceding Petitioner was entitled to
compensation, and I issued a ruling on entitlement that same day. ECF Nos. 34-35. Due to a disagreement
related primarily to the extend of the SIRVA sequelae and potential ongoing co-morbidities, the parties were
unable to agree upon the appropriate amount of damages. E.g., Status Report, filed Nov. 4, 2022, ECF No.
41.

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 70 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 4
briefing, I issued a ruling finding Petitioner entitled to $140,000.00 for past pain and
suffering and a yearly amount of $1,500.00 for future pain and suffering. ECF No. 59. I
instructed the parties to continue their informal discussions in an attempt to reach an
agreement regarding the appropriate amount of unreimbursed expenses and net present
value for the future component of the award. Id. at 13.
On January 22, 2026, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation
(“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $165,386.11, representing
$140,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $20,486.70 for future pain and suffering (after
the reduction of the yearly award of $1,500.00 to net present value),4 and $4,899.41 for
past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented
that he reserves the right to appeal my damages ruling and that Petitioner agrees with
the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled
to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $165,386.11, representing $140,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, $20,486.70 for projected pain and suffering, and $4,899.41 for actual
unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Pursuant to Section 15(f)(4)(A), any future amounts must be reduced to net present value.
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.
2

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 70 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
MICHAEL CALVIN MILLER,
Petitioner, No. 20-1225V (ECF)
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On August 27, 2025, the Court issued a Partial Ruling on Damages. ECF No. 59. The
Court made findings with regard to past and future pain and suffering damages but instructed the
parties to attempt to informally resolve the remaining components of damages, specifically, the
question of past and future expenses and the reduction of all future amounts to net present value.
The parties have reached an agreement on the remaining elements of damages. While preserving
his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s
Partial Ruling on Damages, respondent proffers the following compensation.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
On August 27, 2025, the Court awarded petitioner “damages in the amount of
$140,000.00 for past pain and suffering, plus $1,500.00 per year for future pain and suffering.”
ECF No. 59 at 2. In accordance with the Court’s ruling, respondent proffers that petitioner
should be awarded $160,486.70 in actual and projected pain and suffering. This amount reflects
that any award for projected pain and suffering has been reduced to net present value. 42 U.S.C.

Case 1:20-vv-01225-UNJ Document 70 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 4
§ 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in
the amount of $4,899.41. Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment of $165,386.11, in the form of an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s
IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner, Micheal Calvin Miller. Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
JONATHAN D. GUYNN
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Sarah B. Rifkin
SARAH B. RIFKIN
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-5997
Sarah.Rifkin@usdoj.gov
DATE: January 22, 2026
2