VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01314
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01314
Petitioner: Michelle Wylie
Filed: 2020-10-02
Decided: 2022-12-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-09-11
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 111406

AI-assisted case summary:
Michelle Wylie filed a petition alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 11, 2019. The respondent conceded entitlement, finding that Ms. Wylie had no prior shoulder issues, experienced pain within 48 hours of vaccination, and her symptoms were limited to the vaccinated shoulder. The case proceeded to a damages hearing. Ms. Wylie sought $128,406.49, including $125,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,406.49 for unreimbursed medical expenses. She described experiencing pain, limited range of motion, and underwent surgery approximately eight months after vaccination, followed by physical therapy. The respondent argued for a lower pain and suffering award, citing her relatively good recovery. The court awarded Ms. Wylie $111,406.49, comprising $108,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,406.49 for medical expenses, noting that surgery was a significant factor justifying a higher award.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01314-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-01-06
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/07/2021) regarding 23 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 25 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1314V
UNPUBLISHED
MICHELLE WYLIE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 7, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 2, 2020, Michelle Wylie filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
September 11, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On December 6, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at
1. Specifically, Respondent states that “Petitioner had no history or pain, inflammation, or
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-01314-UNJ Document 25 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 2
dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to her vaccination that would explain the alleged
symptoms and examination findings occurring after the vaccine injection; she more likely
than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her
pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was
administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain
Petitioner’s symptoms. Id. at 6-7. Respondent further agrees that the “case was timely
filed, Petitioner received her vaccination in the United States, and that Petitioner satisfies
the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her
injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. Id. at 7.
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-01314-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-07
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/04/2022) regarding 35 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1314V
UNPUBLISHED
MICHELLE WYLIE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 4, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Injury (SIRVA)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 2, 2020, Michelle Wylie 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 from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received
on September 11, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters. Although Ms. Wylie has been found entitled to
compensation, the parties were unable to agree to damages.
For the reasons discussed below, and after hearing argument from the parties, I
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of $111,406.49, representing
1 Although this Decision has been deemed unpublished, it will be posted 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).

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 2 of 10
$108,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $3,406.49 in unreimbursed medical
expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately 14 months after this case was initiated, Respondent filed his Rule
4(c) Report on December 6, 2021, conceding that Petitioner was entitled to
compensation. ECF No. 22. A ruling on entitlement was subsequently issued on
December 7, 2021. ECF No. 23. On February 18, 2022, Petitioner filed a status report
indicating that the parties had reached an impasse. ECF No. 27. The parties filed briefs
setting forth their respective positions on pain and suffering - the only disputed damages
element. ECF Nos. 29 (“Br.”), 31 (“Opp.”), and 32 (“Repl.”). I subsequently proposed that
the parties be given the opportunity to argue their positions at a motions hearing, at which
time I would decide the disputed issues. ECF. No. 33. That hearing was held on October
28, 2022,3 and the case is now ripe for a determination.
II. Relevant Medical History
A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the Petition, the parties’
respective pre-hearing briefs, and in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report.
In brief summary, Ms. Wylie received an influenza vaccine in her left shoulder on
September 11, 2019. Ex 3 at 10. Petitioner stated that while the injection itself was not
painful, she experienced a “painful tingling sensation” by that evening and she could not
lift her arm. Ex. 2 at ¶5.
On October 11, 2019 (30 days after her vaccination), Ms. Wylie presented to her
primary care physician (“PCP”) complaining of “intermittent” shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 7. She
rated her pain at 5/10. Id. On October 28, 2022, Petitioner presented to an orthopedist for
evaluation. Ex. 4 at 28. She described “extreme pain” for the first two nights after her
vaccination, continuing lesser pain, and very limited ROM. Id. She was diagnosed with
bursitis and “SIRVA,” prescribed meloxicam, and referred to physical therapy. Id. At 30.
Petitioner had a physical therapy evaluation on November 5, 2019. Ex. 5 at 3. She
reported pain between 4/10 and 8/10 and difficulty performing daily tasks, including hair
care, driving, and reaching into overhead cupboards. Id. Ms. Wylie attended a total of 14
3 At the end of the hearing held on October 28, 2022, I issued an oral ruling from the bench on damages in
this case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the hearing, which is yet to be filed with the
case’s docket. The transcript from the hearing is, however, fully incorporated into this Decision.
2

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 3 of 10
sessions of physical therapy through February 6, 2020. Ex. 5 at 3-73. Upon discharge,
Petitioner’s prognosis was “fair” and she was awaiting surgical intervention. Id. at 73.
Petitioner returned to her orthopedist for two follow-up appointments in December
2019. Ex. 4 at 31, 35. An MRI performed on December 27, 2019, revealed moderate
subacromial bursitis; fraying of the posterior supraspinatus tendon; moderate tendinosis
of the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and subscapularis tendons; tenosynovitis of the
biceps; and a tear of the glenoid labrum with moderate effusion. Ex. 4 at 5-6. After
reviewing the MRI results, Petitioner had follow-up orthopedist appointments on January
6, 2020 and February 6, 2020. Ex. 4 at 3, 8. At the latter visit, Petitioner presented with a
significant decrease in range of motion despite physical therapy. Id.
On May 6, 2020, Petitioner underwent left shoulder arthroscopy with lysis and
resection of adhesions with manipulation, arthroscopic biceps tenotomy, and
debridement of the rotator cuff. Ex. 7 at 5-6. She had post-surgery follow-up appointments
with her orthopedist on May 12, 2020, and June 16, 2020. Ex. 4 at 21, 25.
After her surgery, Petitioner completed 18 physical therapy sessions prior to her
discharge on July 9, 2020. Ex. 5 at 75-111; Ex. 8. At her fourth post-surgery session,
Petitioner reported that she had returned to running two weeks after her surgery with only
mild pain. Ex. 5 at 89. Upon discharge, she reported her improvement at 95%, with some
remaining difficulty reaching overhead and behind her back. Id. at 77.
Although there are no treatment records filed for any period after July 9, 2020 (ten
months after her vaccination), Petitioner states that she continues to have “slight
discomfort” and weakness in her shoulder, which is aggravated with activity and for which
she takes ibuprofen. Ex. 9 at ¶15.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
a. Petitioner
Ms. Wylie seeks $128,406.49, consisting of $125,000.00 as compensation for her
pain and suffering, plus $3,406.49 for past unreimbursable medical expenses. Br. at 1.
The parties agree on the amount for out-of-pocket expenses. Id.
Petitioner argues that her SIRVA injury caused her severe pain prior to her surgery,
which did not improve with conservative treatment, including orthopedic treatment,
prescription medication, and physical therapy. Br. at 7. After her arthroscopic surgery,
Petitioner improved with additional physical therapy, but still had symptoms and difficulty
3

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 4 of 10
at discharge. Br. at 7-8. Petitioner states that she continues to experience pain at a level
of 3/10 and “has difficulty sleeping and with recreational activities.” Br. at 8.
During the hearing and in her brief, Petitioner discussed prior SIRVA cases that
involved injured claimants with similar fact patterns, and argued that an award of
$125,000.00 in pain and suffering was reasonable and appropriate given that her
circumstances were comparable. Br. at 6-9.
b. Respondent
Respondent maintains that a pain and suffering award of $67,500.00 is
appropriate. Opp. at 1. Respondent contends that Petitioner’s course of treatment was
significantly milder than she admits, “especially when one considers her symptoms at first
presentation, participation in pre-operative physical therapy, and excellent recovery
following surgery.” Id. at 7. Respondent argues that Petitioner reported extreme pain only
the first few nights after vaccination and only intermittent discomfort when she presented
to her PCP for treatment. Id. at 8. Respondent also notes that Petitioner never received
any steroid injections for her pain. Id.
Respondent distinguishes Petitioner’s cited prior SIRVA cases, arguing that both
cased involved more severe injuries. Opp. at 8. Those petitioners sought treatment
sooner, rated their pain higher, received steroid injections, were unable to participate in
pre-surgery physical therapy, and had more severe deficits upon discharge. Id. In
addition, Respondent also notes that Petitioner reported returning to running two weeks
after her surgery with only mild pain, and recovery of 95% by the time she was discharged
from physical therapy just over two months after her surgery. Id.
During the hearing and in his brief, Respondent discussed two prior SIRVA cases
as the basis for his proposed pain and suffering award. Opp. at 11.
IV. 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 awarding such expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-
related injury for which the 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
4

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 5 of 10
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 (citing 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 that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs. , 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated that 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. In Graves, Judge Merow rejected a special master’s approach of awarding
compensation for pain and suffering based on a spectrum from $0.00 to the statutory
$250,000.00 cap. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl.
2013). Judge Merow maintained that 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 589-90. Instead, Judge Merow
assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For
the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims, were
assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019, the
majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
5

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 6 of 10
awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the
Vaccine Program. Id. at 593-95. 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.
V. 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, 2022, 2,371 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU
on July 1, 2014. Compensation was awarded in 2,306 of these cases, with the remaining
65 cases dismissed.
Of the compensated cases, 1,339 SPU SIRVA cases involved a prior ruling that
petitioner was entitled to compensation. In only 88 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
1,223 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).
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).
6

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 7 of 10
The remaining 967 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 88 1,223 28 967
Lowest $40,757.91 $25,000.00 $45,000.00 $5,000.00
1st Quartile $70,950.73 $70,000.00 $90,000.00 $42,500.00
Median $95,974.09 $90,000.00 $122,886.42 $60,390.00
3rd Quartile $125,269.46 $116,662.57 $161,001.79 $88,051.88
Largest $265,034.87 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 88 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 $94,000.00 as the median amount. Only five 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 experienced
this greater pain for three months or less. All petitioners displayed only mild to moderate
limitations in range of motion (“ROM”), and MRI imaging showed evidence of mild to
7 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
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).
7

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 8 of 10
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. The duration of the 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. Only one petitioner provided evidence of an ongoing SIRVA, and it was expected
to resolve within the subsequent year.
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 95 PT sessions over a duration of more than two
years and multiple cortisone injections, was required in these cases. In four cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
VI. Appropriate Compensation in this SIRVA Case
a. Awareness of Suffering
Awareness of suffering is not typically a disputed issue in cases involving SIRVA
– and it does not appear to be herein either. Neither party has argued that Ms. Wylie
lacked awareness of her injury, thus, I find that Petitioner had full awareness of her
suffering.
b. Severity and Duration of Pain and Suffering
With respect to the severity and duration of the injury, Petitioner’s medical records
and affidavits describe a moderate SIRVA injury. Petitioner sought treatment relatively
quickly after her vaccination, and consistently reported pain levels above 4/10 prior to her
surgery. Ex. 3 at 7; Ex. 4 at 28; Ex. 5 at 3-73. She was prescribed medications and
completed 14 physical therapy sessions prior to her surgery. Ex. 4 at 28; Ex. 5 at 3-73.
Petitioner underwent successful surgery approximately eight months after her
vaccination. Ex. 7 at 5-6. After her surgery, Petitioner’s recovery was excellent. She
attended 18 sessions of physical therapy and two follow up appointments with her
orthopedist. Ex. 5 at 75-111; Ex. 4 at 21, 25; Ex. 8. She reported 95% recovery upon her
8

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 9 of 10
discharge from physical therapy, two months after surgery. Ex. 8 at 77. Her total course
of treatment spanned approximately ten months.
After reviewing the record in this case and considering the parties’ arguments
during the hearing, I find that the overall injury, while somewhat moderate, was serious
enough (especially since surgery was required) to justify a six-figure award. Petitioner
cited two good comparable prior SIRVA cases (particularly Vaccaro), whereas
Respondent’s cases did not involve surgery. Certainly a number of factors (including the
speed of treatment, the number of physical therapy sessions, the number of steroid
injections, and the impact of an injury on the petitioner’s employment and activities) bear
on the determination of the severity of a SIRVA injury. But surgery is a particularly
compelling justification for a higher award (especially since it more often than not occurs
because more conservative treatments are not sufficiently ameliorative, and where a
claimant has experienced pain and other unsuccessful interventions). Respondent’s
proposal fails to adequately account for the pain and suffering Petitioner experienced
during and after her surgery. As a result, Respondent has not successfully defended his
proposed pain and suffering award.
In addition to Petitioner’s proposed comparable cases, I deem the present action
factually similar to another recent case: Issertell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
20-0099V, 2022 WL 2288247, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 17, 2022). In Issertell, the
petitioner sought treatment 15 days after her vaccination. Id. at *2. She received a steroid
injection, had chiropractic and acupuncture treatment, and had two PT sessions prior to
surgery for her SIRVA. Id. at *2-4. Ms. Issertell’s MRI showed a significant injury with
partial thickness tears, bursitis, effusion, and tendinosis. Id. at 4. She had surgery seven
months after vaccination, had 12 post-surgery PT sessions, and ended treatment ten
months after vaccination with a good post-surgical recovery. Id. at *5-6. She was awarded
$112,500 in pain and suffering. Id. at 10.
The degree of factual similarity between the treatment course of the Issertell
petitioner and Ms. Wylie’s course suggest an award of pain and suffering in the same
range. However, my award will be somewhat lower, in light of several persuasive
arguments made by Respondent, including the fact that Petitioner did not have any
steroid injections, that her recovery after surgery was both excellent and swift, with 95%
recovery after only two months, and that her total treatment course lasted only ten
months.
Under such circumstances, and considering the arguments presented by both
parties at the hearing, a review of the cited cases, and based on the record as a whole, I
find that $108,000.00 in compensation for past pain and suffering is reasonable and
appropriate in this case.
9

Case 1:20-vv-01314-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/07/22 Page 10 of 10
c. Award for Past Unreimbursed Expenses
Petitioner requests $3,406.49 in past unreimburs able expenses. Br. at 9.
Respondent does not dispute this sum, and therefore Petitioner is awarded this sum
without adjustment.
VII. CONCLUSION
In light of all of the above, the I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$111,406.49, (representing $108,000.00 for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering and
$3,406.49 for unreimbursable medical expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner, Michelle Wylie. This amount represents compensation for all damages that
would be available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
10