VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01261
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01261
Petitioner: Sarah Henderson
Filed: 2020-09-24
Decided: 2023-03-31
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-27
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 66211

AI-assisted case summary:
Sarah Henderson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 27, 2019. Respondent conceded that her injury was consistent with SIRVA, a Table injury, and that compensation was appropriate, leading to a ruling on entitlement. The parties were unable to resolve damages, so the court determined the award. Petitioner sought $95,000 for pain and suffering and $3,037.89 for expenses, arguing her injury was severe and lasted over three years. Respondent proposed $65,000 for pain and suffering and $1,211.90 for expenses, contending her injury was moderate, resolved within eleven months, and that she had unrelated co-morbidities. The court found that Sarah Henderson suffered a moderate SIRVA injury for approximately eleven months, with concurrent unrelated pain in her neck, back, and thighs. After reviewing the evidence and comparable cases, the court awarded $65,000 for past pain and suffering. Regarding expenses, the court found that much of the treatment sought after September 2020 was for unrelated issues and that documentation for some expenses was inadequate. Therefore, the court awarded the amount proposed by Respondent for unreimbursed expenses, $1,211.90. In total, Sarah Henderson was awarded a lump sum of $66,211.90.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01261-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-04-07
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/02/2022) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 33 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1261V
UNPUBLISHED
SARAH HENDERSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: March 2, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu);
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA).
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 24, 2020, Sarah Henderson filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
October 27, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On February 28, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury
Table, and that compensation is appropriate. Specifically, Petitioner had no history of
pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in the shoulder at issue; the onset of Petitioner’s pain
1 Because this unpublished opinion 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 opinion will be available to anyone with access to the internet.
In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioners have 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-01261-UNJ Document 33 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 2
occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; Petitioner’s pain
and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was
administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain Petitioner’s
symptoms. Respondent further agrees that the statutory six-month sequelae requirement
has been satisfied. Rule 4(c) Report (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)).
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-01261-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-31
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/28/2023) regarding 52 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1261V
UNPUBLISHED
SARAH HENDERSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 28, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 24, 2020, Sarah Henderson filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine administered on October 27, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 19. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). 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 unpublished Decision 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 Decision will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
3 After approximately four months of damages discussions, Petitioner rejected Respondent’s counteroffer,
requesting that I determine the appropriate amount of damages. Status Report, filed July 13, 2022, ECF
No. 43.

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 2 of 11
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount $66,211.90, representing $65,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, plus $1,211.90 for past unreimbursed expenses.
I. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment award such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award
for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3)
duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is
nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and
suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages
in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell.
For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims,
2

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 3 of 11
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of
vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
The Graves court maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering awards
into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is compared
to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 590. Instead, Graves
assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering
awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the
Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely
cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible
awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards.
II. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU5
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of January 1, 2023, 3,031 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU
on July 1, 2014. Compensation was awarded in 2,950 of these cases, with the remaining
81 cases dismissed.
Of the compensated cases, 1,677 SPU SIRVA cases involved a prior ruling that
petitioner was entitled to compensation. In only 148 of these cases was the amount of
damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision. As I have previously
stated, the written decisions setting forth such determinations, prepared by neutral judicial
officers (the special masters themselves), provide the most reliable precedent setting
forth what similarly-situated claimants should also receive.6
were assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019,
the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
5 All figures included in this decision are derived from a review of the decisions awarding compensation
within the SPU. All decisions reviewed are, or will be, available publicly. All figures and calculations cited
are approximate.
6 See, e.g., Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (discussing the difference between cases in which damages are agreed upon by
the parties and cases in which damages are determined by a special master).
3

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 4 of 11
1,501 of this subset of post-entitlement determination, compensation-awarding
cases, were the product of informal settlement - cases via proffer and 28 cases via
stipulation. Although all proposed amounts denote an agreement reached by the parties,
those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than any formal agreement
or acknowledgment by Respondent that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages. Of course, even though any such informally-resolved case must still be
approved by a special master, these determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number
of such cases, these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of
awards received overall in comparable cases.” Sakovits, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
(emphasis in original).
The remaining 1,273 compensated SIRVA cases were resolved via stipulated
agreement of the parties without a prior ruling on entitlement. These agreements are often
described as “litigative risk” settlements, and thus represent a reduced percentage of the
compensation which otherwise would be awarded. Due to the complexity of these
settlement discussions, many which involve multiple competing factors, these awards do
not constitute a reliable gauge of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded
in other SPU SIRVA cases.
The data for all groups described above reflect the expected differences in
outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated7
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 148 1,501 28 1,273
Lowest $40,757.91 $22,500.00 $45,000.00 $5,000.00
1st Quartile $70,382.97 $65,000.00 $90,000.00 $40,000.00
Median $93,649.92 $85,000.00 $122,886.42 $56,250.00
3rd Quartile $125,000.00 $112,654.00 $161,001.79 $82,500.00
Largest $265,034.87 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
7 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
4

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 5 of 11
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 148 SPU SIRVA cases which required a reasoned damages decision,
compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from $40,000.00
to $210,000.00, with $90,000.00 as the median amount. Only seven of these cases
involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from $250.00
to $1,500.00.8
In cases with lower awards for past pain and suffering, many petitioners commonly
demonstrated only mild to moderate levels of pain throughout their injury course. This
lack of significant pain is often evidenced by a delay in seeking treatment – over six
months in one case. In cases with more significant initial pain, petitioners usually
experienced this greater pain for three months or less. Most petitioners displayed only
mild to moderate limitations in range of motion (“ROM”), and MRI imaging showed
evidence of mild to moderate pathologies such as tendinosis, bursitis, or edema. Many
petitioners suffered from unrelated conditions to which a portion of their pain and suffering
could be attributed. These SIRVAs usually resolved after one to two cortisone injections
and two months or less of physical therapy (“PT”). None required surgery. Except in one
case involving very mild pain levels, the duration of the SIRVA injury ranged from six to
30 months, with most petitioners averaging approximately nine months of pain. Although
some petitioners asserted residual pain, the prognosis in these cases was positive.
Cases with higher awards for past pain and suffering involved petitioners who
suffered more significant levels of pain and SIRVAs of longer duration. Most of these
petitioners subjectively rated their pain within the upper half of a ten-point pain scale and
sought treatment of their SIRVAs more immediately, often within 30 days of vaccination.
All experienced moderate to severe limitations in range of motion. MRI imaging showed
more significant findings, with the majority showing evidence of partial tearing. Surgery or
significant conservative treatment, up to 133 PT sessions - occasionally spanning several
years, and multiple cortisone injections, were required in these cases. In six cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner is seeking $95,000.00 for her actual/past pain and suffering, and
$3,037.89 for unreimbursed expenses. Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages (“Brief”)
at 1, 20, filed July 26, 2022, ECF No. 45. When arguing for this pain and suffering amount,
8 Additionally, a first-year future pain and suffering award of $10,000.00 was made in one case. Dhanoa v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 6 of 11
she emphasizes her quick report of pain and pursuit of treatment only six days post-
vaccination; the amount of treatment she required - which she characterizes as extensive;
the difficulties she experienced caring for her 17-month-old child; and the overall duration
of injury, which she calculates as lasting three or more years. Id. at 19-20. She favorably
compares the facts and circumstances in her case with those suffered by the petitioners
in Bergstrom, Russano, Harper, and Accetta9 - decisions featuring past pain and suffering
awards ranging from $80,000.00 to $95,000.00. Brief at 14-16.
Characterizing the amounts sought by Petitioner as excessive, Respondent
counters that Petitioner should be awarded $65,000.00 for actual/past pain and suffering,
and $1,211.90 in past unreimbursed expenses. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s
Brief in Support of Damages (“Opp.”) at 2, 9, 16, filed Sept. 26, 2022, ECF No. 48. He
maintains that Petitioner’s injury was primarily resolved almost one-year post-vaccination
– in September 2020. Id. at 10-11. He also insists that the treatment Petitioner later sought
was primarily for unrelated cervical and muscle pain. Id. He emphasizes these co-
morbidities and other differences when distinguishing Petitioner’s facts and
circumstances from those in the four cases cited by Petitioner. Id. at 11-14. Respondent
instead proposes Dagen, Johnson, and Murray,10 in which petitioners received pain and
suffering awards of $65,000.00, as more accurate comparable cases.
In his brief, Respondent otherwise states his continued belief that the proffered
amount represents “the full values of damages,” and that “[a]wards that significantly
deviate from this full value incentivize petitioners to reject [R]espondent’s full-value
proffers, confident that the [C]ourt will always award more.” Opp. at 9 (emphasis in the
original). He complains that this practice increases the frequency of damages briefing,
creating more work for Respondent and the Court, and increasing attorney’s fees. Id.
In her reply brief, Petitioner criticizes Respondent’s characterization of her SIRVA
injury as mild. Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Brief at 1-3 (“Reply”), filed Oct. 11, 2022,
ECF No. 49. She argues that her proposed comparable cases are more analogous to
Petitioner’s circumstances. Id. at 3-7. In addition, maintaining that her “attempts at pain
relief are well documented . . . and therefore justify the purchases to alleviate any pain
9 Bergstrom v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0784V, 2021 WL 5754968 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov.
2, 2021); Russano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0392V, 2020 WL 3639804 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. June 4, 2020); Harper v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0202V, 2021 WL 5231980 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Oct. 8, 2021); Accetta v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1731V, 2021 WL 1718202
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 31, 2021).
10 Dagen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0442V, 2019 WL 7187335 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 6,
2019); Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1486V, 2021 WL 836891 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 25, 2021); Murray v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0534V, 2020 WL 4522483 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 6, 2020).
6

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 7 of 11
and discomfort she has due to her vaccine injury,” Petitioner reiterates her belief that she
is entitled to the full amount of claimed expenses - $3,037.89. Id. at 8.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
A. General Analysis
I note at the outset that I previously have rejected Respondent's argument that the
amounts awarded in proffered cases are a more accurate gauge of the appropriate
amount to be awarded than reasoned decisions from the court and special masters.
Sakovits, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4. While “settled cases and proffers provide some
evidence of the kinds of awards received overall in comparable cases,” they are not as
persuasive as reasoned decisions from a judicial neutral. Id. (emphasis in original). Taken
as a whole, these decisions can be a helpful gauge of the compensation being awarded
in SPU SIRVA cases. However, they still represent Petitioner’s acquiescence to
Respondent view of the value of the case.
Similarly, Respondent’s assertion that special masters always award more than
Respondent proposes in fully briefed damages cases is incorrect. There are many
instances (including this very case) where I accept the amount Respondent proposes.
But even then, I have found Petitioner’s arguments favoring an alternative sum to be
genuine.11 And, if I encounter a case which does not fit that description, I could simply
decline to award any unreasonable attorney’s fees.
Otherwise, it is disingenuous to hold petitioners entirely responsible for the parties
occasional inability to reach an informal agreement.12 Just as petitioners (motivated by a
desire to maximize their award) will sometimes offer comparable cases involving more
severe pain and suffering, or fail to adequately show why their award should be greater
as they contend, Respondent (as the Congress-designated steward of Program funds)
may err in the other direction out of a desire to maintain Program funds for future vaccine-
injured claimants. Good faith disagreement about the proper magnitude of a Program
award is inherent to the judicial process that special masters oversee, and cannot overall
11 Since assuming the role of Chief Special Master on October 1, 2019, and thus, responsibility for all SPU
cases, I have awarded Respondent’s proposed amounts in three SPU SIRVA cases involving reasoned
decisions. Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2021 WL 6773160 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Dec. 29, 2021); Aponte v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1031V, 2022 WL 4707180 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Sept. 2, 2022); Klausen, No. 19-1977V (Issued on Feb. 2, 2023, this decision has not yet been
posted to the Court’s website). In another eight cases, I have awarded within $5,000.00 of Respondent’s
proposed amounts. Similarly, I have awarded the exact amounts Petitioner sought in five SPU SIRVA
cases, and within $5,000.00 in ten cases.
12 As noted in Section II of this Decision, the overwhelming majority of compensated SPU SIRVA cases –
2,802 out of 2,950 or 95 percent, are resolved by some type of informal agreements between the parties.
7

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 8 of 11
be blamed on one side’s chronic intransigence.
B. Specific Analysis
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact his
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing the analysis in this case, I review the record as a whole to include
the medical records, declarations, affidavits, and all other filed evidence, plus the parties’
briefs and other pleadings. I consider prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and
non-SPU SIRVA cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However,
I base my determination on the circumstances of this case.
A thorough review of the medical records reveals that Ms. Henderson suffered a
moderate SIRVA injury for approximately eleven months.13 Simultaneously, she exhibited
pain and tightness in other areas – such as her neck, back, and thighs - which appeared
unrelated to her SIRVA injury.14 Indeed, throughout her medical records, there are
references to many unrelated co-morbidities such as cervicalgia, muscle tightness,
spasms, cervical ligament strain, infertility, irregular menstrual cycle, and stress.15 After
September 2020, these other symptoms were the primary focus of Petitioner’s
treatment.16
13 Petitioner consistently reported pain levels from one to eight on a scale of ten. E.g., Exhibit 5 at 15
(reporting pain ranging from three to eight at a December 2019 PT session); Exhibit 7 at 4 (report pain
ranging from one to eight at a January 2020 orthopedic appointment).
14 E.g., Exhibit 12 at 20 (also reporting “twitching and knotting of muscles in thighs/calf; eyes feel twitche
[sic]” in early November 2019); Exhibit 5 at 10 (reporting neck pain in December 2019), at 15 (reporting
right-sided neck pain which increased when working on the computer); Exhibit 12 at 13-14 (reporting knots
in her back and significant tightness and periodic spasms in the morning in early December 2019).
15 E.g., Exhibit 5 (attributing her neck pain to a sprain of the ligaments of her cervical spine); Exhibit 8 at 8
at 31 (reporting that she also received PT for her cervical spine); Exhibit 20 at 8 (cervicalgia listed in
acupuncture records from June 2021 through early 2022); Exhibit 18 at 4 (acupuncture for “[f]ertility,
irregular cycle, [and] stress”).
16 E.g., Exhibit 20 at 8 (acupuncture in June 2021 and early 2022 for cervicalgia, pain in the thoracic spine,
shoulder pain and back muscle spasm); Exhibit 18 at 4 (facial acupuncture in July 2021 for “[f]ertility,
irregular cycle, [and] stress”). Although the shoulder pain mention in June 2021 was described as right,
instead of left shoulder pain, this entry could be due to a simple mistake. Later acupuncture records – from
2022, describe the same accompanying areas of pain, but indicate left, instead of right, shoulder. Compare
Exhibit 20 at 7 with id. at 3-6. Thus, the evidence supports a reading more beneficial to Petitioner – that
acupuncturist meant left shoulder when making this notation. See id. at 7.
8

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 9 of 11
Although Petitioner relied on acupuncture and massage to relieve her pain, much
of this treatment was focused on her back and neck pain. Furthermore, the amount of
massage therapy appears to be minimal, and cannot be properly assessed as Petitioner
failed to provide any documentation for these visits. See Petition at 7, 9, 16; Brief at 5
(citing only Petitioner’s signed declaration17 for every mention of the massage therapy
she underwent).
Petitioner links all symptoms experienced during this time to her SIRVA injury, but
there is no medical record or other evidence to indicate that her treating physicians shared
this view. And their inclusion of multiple, unrelated diagnoses further undermines
Petitioner’s claims in this area.
The cases proposed by Respondent offer the most appropriate comparisons to
Petitioner’s case. All involved prompt initial treatment, at least one cortisone injection
(albeit offering only temporary relief) a similar amount of PT, and simultaneous co-
morbidities. Dagen, 2019 WL 7187335, at *9-10; Johnson, 2021 WL 836891, at *7;
Murray, 2020 WL 4522483, at *1-2. The Johnson and Dagen petitioners also suffered
from cervical and back pain, respectively. Dagen, 2019 WL 7187335, at *2; Johnson,
2021 WL 836891, at *7. And the Murray petitioner was recovering from a car accident
and negative side effects of horseback riding. Murray, 2020 WL 4522483, at *4-5.
I also find the Tjaden case – involving a past pain and suffering award of
$68,000.00, to be instructive. Tjaden v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0419V,
2021 WL 837953 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 25, 2021). Like Petitioner in this case, the
Tjaden petitioner sought treatment within a week of vaccination and pursued treatment
other than from her orthopedist (chiropractic care) – the focus of which was lumbar and
cervical pain and tension. Id. at 5-6. However, the Tjaden petitioner’s SIRVA injury lasted
slightly longer – 15 months. And despite being an occupational therapist more able to
self-treat, the Tjaden petitioner required slightly more PT, spanning twice the amount of
time. Additionally, the Tjaden petitioner suffered an initial two-month period of more
severe pain and limitations in ROM (an inability to raise her arm above 90 degrees), and
she did not benefit from even the temporary relief Petitioner obtained from her steroid
injection. Id. at 5. These differences dictate that Petitioner should be awarded slightly less
than the Tjaden petitioner.
Because they involve petitioners with more extensive SIRVA injuries and no other
sources of pain, the cases proposed by Petitioner – involving awards even greater than
in Tjaden - do not offer appropriate comparisons to Petitioner’s case. Bergstrom, 2021
17 Petitioner’s declaration was signed under penalty pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746.
Exhibit 2.
9

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 10 of 11
WL 5754968, at *5-8; Russano, 2020 WL 3639804, at *3-4; Harper, 2021 WL 5231980,
at *2-5; Accetta, 2021 WL 1718202, at *3-4. Following the guidance provided by the
Johnson, Dagen, Murray, and Tjaden cases, I find $65,000.00 to be an appropriate
amount for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering.
V. Appropriate Amount of Unreimbursed Expenses
Petitioner seeks compensation in the amount of $3,037.89, to reimburse her for
her out-of-pocket medical expenses. Brief at 20. Stating that these expenses are
comprised of expenditures such as “copays, physical therapy, chiropractic care,[18] and
massage therapy,” Petitioner simply directs me to Exhibit A – her list of expenses and
corresponding receipts.19 Respondent counters that Petitioner should receive a lesser
amount - $1,211.90. Opp. at 15. Besides objecting to any expense for treatment after
September 2020, Respondent argues that some of the expenses were not related to
Petitioner’s SIRVA injury, not recommended by her treating physicians, and/or
unsubstantiated by receipts or medical records. Id.
In her reply, Petitioner reiterates her assertion - that the SIRVA injury she
experienced continued beyond September 2020. Reply at 7-8. Characterizing all
expenses sought as related to “consistent methods of pain relief for a shoulder injury,”
Petitioner argues her “attempts at pain relief are well documented in the record and in
Petitioner’s affidavit and therefore justify the purchases to alleviate any pain and
discomfort she has due to her vaccine injury.” Id. at 8.
As I have already stated, Petitioner’s SIRVA injury was largely resolved by
September 2020, and the focus of her treatment thereafter was for unrelated areas of
pain. Even treatment prior to this time was also for pain and muscle tension - not proven
to be related to Petitioner’s SIRVA injury. And Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient
documentation for the massage therapy she received.
Additionally, Petitioner often failed to provide adequate documentation
establishing that the requested reimbursement is appropriate. For example, to support an
18 Other than this notation, there is no evidence Petitioner saw a chiropractor to treat her left shoulder pain.
It appears Petitioner may be referring to her massage therapy.
19 Because Petitioner filed Exhibit A in one document - along with her brief, without proper pagination, it
initially was difficult to identify the corresponding receipt. When designating each expense list page number,
it appears Petitioner intended to file Exhibit A as a separate attachment. Thus, the correct corresponding
receipt can be located by adding 21 (the amount of pages utilized by Petitioner’s brief) to the corresponding
page number listed beside each expense. For example, the receipts for massage therapy performed in
2022 can be found on pages 27 through 29, instead of pages 6-8 as the expense list indicates. Brief at 23,
27-29. The receipt for the MRI indicated as located on page 47, can be found on page 68. Id. at 24, 68
10

Case 1:20-vv-01261-UNJ Document 58 Filed 03/31/23 Page 11 of 11
expense of $38.35 for lab tests incurred on November 11, 2019, Petitioner submitted only
her credit card statement showing a charge in this amount billed by LCA Labcorp20 on
December 24, 2019. Brief at 23, 72. She provided no further explanation or argument
regarding this cost. And some of the documentation appears to be related to treatment
which occurred in 2013 and 2014. Id. at 33-35. Regarding the orthopedic treatment she
underwent in January 2020, Petitioner seeks reimbursement for both her copays and the
patient amount listed on the orthopedist’s billing records. Id. at 24, 32. However, the
documentation related to treatment in 2013-14 shows these patient amounts were often
adjusted for/forgiven by the provider. See id. at 33-35. The provided documentation does
not show Petitioner actually incurred or paid these amounts. Id. at 32.
Given the lack of adequate documentation or explanation for many of the amounts
sought by Petitioner, along with the fact that much of this treatment and testing was
initiated by Petitioner for multiple overlapping but distinct co-morbidities, I find the amount
proposed by Respondent to be reasonable. Therefore, I will award the amount which
Respondent does not oppose - $1,211.90.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $65,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.21 I also find that Petitioner
is entitled to $1,211.90 in actual lost wages. I therefore award a lump sum payment
of $66,211.90 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
20 Labcorp appears to be a walk-in lab which accepts appointments directly. See https://www.labcorp.com
(last visited Feb. 23, 2023).
21 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
22 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
11