VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01317
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01317
Petitioner: Lisa Hrica
Filed: 2020-10-05
Decided: 2025-02-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-05
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 198610

AI-assisted case summary:
Lisa Hrica filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 5, 2017. The respondent conceded that her injury was consistent with SIRVA and that she was entitled to compensation. The case proceeded to a damages hearing because the parties could not agree on the amount. Petitioner sought compensation for pain and suffering and unreimbursable expenses. Her medical records documented severe pain, decreased range of motion, rotator cuff tendinopathy, and edema following the vaccination. Her treatment involved two shoulder surgeries, numerous physical therapy sessions, and sixteen steroid injections over several years. The Special Master awarded Lisa Hrica a total of $198,610.00, comprising $198,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $610.00 for unreimbursable expenses. This award was based on a comparison to prior SIRVA cases, considering the severity and duration of her injury, the multiple treatments required, and the fact that her condition involved two surgeries.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01317-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-07-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/06/2022) regarding 25 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ke) Service on parties made. Modified on 11/3/2022 to change name to initials (ypb).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01317-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/08/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1317V
UNPUBLISHED
LISA HRICA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 6, 2022
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)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 5, 2020, Lisa Hrica 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), resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination
she received on October 5, 2017. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the
vaccination was administered within the United States, her pain lasted longer than six
months, and neither she, nor any other party, has ever received compensation in the form
of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at 1, 5. 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-01317-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/08/22 Page 2 of 2
On May 11, 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.
Respondent determined that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as
defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 10-11. Specifically, Respondent determined
that “[P]etitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder
prior to the subject vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours of the subject
vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and
no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.”
Id. at 11. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her
condition for more than six months, satisfying the Act’s severity requirement and that
scope of damages to be awarded is limited to petitioner’s SIRVA and its related sequelae
only. 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-01317-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-14
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/10/2025) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01317-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/14/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1317V
UNPUBLISHED
LISA HRICA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 10, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Sarah B. Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 5, 2020, Lisa Hrica 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 Table Injury – a Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
October 5, 2017. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Although Respondent
conceded entitlement, the parties could not agree on damages, so the disputed issues
were submitted to AN SPU “Motions Day” hearing. An expedited hearing took place on
1 Because this 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).

Case 1:20-vv-01317-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/14/25 Page 2 of 6
December 19, 2024. Minute Entry dated December 30, 2024.3 I orally ruled on Petitioner’s
damages at that time, and this Decision memorializes my determination.
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to $198,000.00
for actual pain and suffering, and $610.00 for unreimbursable expenses, for a total award
of $198,610.00.
I. Pain and Suffering
A. Legal Standard and Prior SIRVA Pain and Suffering Awards
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I fully
adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections II and III of Winkle v. Sec’y
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0485V, 2022 WL 221643, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
11, 2022).
In sum, 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). 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). 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.4
B. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, Ms. Hrica’s awareness of the injury is not disputed, leaving only the
severity and duration of that injury to be considered. In determining appropriate
compensation for pain and suffering, I have carefully reviewed and taken into account the
complete record in this case, including, but not limited to: Petitioner’s medical records,
affidavits, filings, and all assertions made by the parties in written documents and at the
expedited hearing held on November 22, 2024. I have also considered prior awards for
pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases and relied upon my experience
3 Mr. Matteo Forero appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and Ms. Shelly Jock appeared on behalf of
Respondent. The transcript of the hearing in this case was not filed as of the date of this Decision, but my
oral ruling is incorporated by reference herein.
4 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (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)).
2

Case 1:20-vv-01317-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/14/25 Page 3 of 6
adjudicating these cases. However, my determination is ultimately based upon the
specific circumstances of this case.
The record establishes that Petitioner suffered a fairly severe SIRVA injury.
Petitioner first sought treatment for her shoulder approximately two weeks after the initial
vaccination, ON October 19, 2017, when she visited her primary care physician, Dr.
Stephen Shields. She complained experiencing pain and decreased range of motion
(“ROM”) since receiving the flu vaccination and reported pain levels up to 10/10 at
maximum. Ex. 2 at 26-27. Dr. Shields prescribed a conservative course of treatment with
heat compress, Medrol, tramadol to manage the pain, and to wear a left shoulder sling.
He also ordered an MRI for Petitioner, which she underwent the next day. The MRI shoed
rotator cuff tendinopathy, diffuse rotator cuff muscle edema, moderate left shoulder joint
effusion with a possible cyst, and a moderate amount of fluid in the subacromial
subdeltoid bursa. Ex. 3 at 98.
Following the MRI, on November 14, 2017, Petitioner sought treatment from an
orthopedist, Dr. Anthony Marcotte, who documented reduced ROM, tenderness, and
positive impingement signs in Petitioner’s shoulder. Ex. 3 at 86-88. Petitioner was
prescribed an oral steroid Medrol Dosepak and additional treatment options, including
surgery were discussed. Petitioner followed up with Dr. Marcotte two days later reporting
the oral steroids had not improved her symptoms. Dr. Marcotte treated Petitioner with a
cortisone steroid injection to her left shoulder. Id.
This began a pattern of treatment which lasted for several months where
Petitioner’s pain and ROM issues would be reduced for a few weeks or months but
eventually the effects of the injection would wear off and she would return to Dr. Marcotte
to follow-up and receive another injection. The record reflects Petitioner received
cortisone injections on November 17, 2017, February 19, 2018, July 31, 2018, August 16,
2018, December 18, 2018, February 12, 2019, April 22, 2019, and July 1, 2019. See
generally Ex. 3.
On August 21, 2019, Dr. Marcotte performed a left shoulder arthroscopy with
synovectomy and debridement. His post-operative diagnosis was chronic left shoulder
pain, bursitis, impingement, biceps tendinopathy, and neck pain. Ex. 3 at 11. Petitioner
followed up with Dr. Marcotte for a post-operation visit on August 29, 2019, where she
reported lingering pain, swelling, and tenderness, but reported normal ROM. She began
PT on September 24, 2019 and completed 17 sessions through December 12, 2019. On
November 18, 2019, Petitioner indicated to Dr. Marcotte that the PT had been beneficial
so far but was still experiencing pain in her left shoulder and received a ninth steroid
injection. Ex. 3 at 31. However, at the end of PT she expressed disappointment that her
shoulder was not asymptomatic after her surgery. Id. at 17.
3

Case 1:20-vv-01317-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/14/25 Page 4 of 6
Petitioner reported for a second PT evaluation on March 11, 2020, after a hiatus
due to issues with her health insurance, reporting pain of 3/10 at rest and 5-6/10 with
active ROM and indicated she could not carry objects over five pounds without increased
pain in her left shoulder. Id. at 7. However, Petitioner ultimately did not undergo any
further PT according to the record. Petitioner also began another pattern of receiving
intermittent steroid injections from her orthopedist’s office (the records indicate she was
seen either by Dr. Marcotte or Physicians Assistant Franceskino), taking place on
February 3, 2020, May 7, 2020, December 28, 2020, May 17, 2021, and August 26, 2021.
On December 7, 2021, Petitioner saw PA Franceskino complaining of constant left
shoulder pain and indicated that she wished to proceed with another surgery. Ex. 6 at 23.
On January 12, 2022, Dr. Marcotte performed an arthroscopy with synovectomy,
debridement, subacromial decompression, and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Id. at 26-
29. The post-operative diagnosis was chronic left shoulder pain, impingement, bursitis,
synovitis, a biceps tendon tear, and a near full-thickness rotator cuff tear. Id.
Following this second surgery, Petitioner did not seek any additional care until
August 2, 2022, when she returned to PA Franceskino complaining of shoulder pain. She
received a fifteenth steroid injection, a prescription for gabapentin, and a home exercise
plan. Ex. 7 at 1-3. Petitioner’s final documented medical treatment was over one year
later on August 17, 2023, when she saw PA Franceskino complaining that her shoulder
pain had slowly been flaring up and bothering her for the past six months. Ex. 8 at 1-3.
She exhibited tenderness and positive impingement signs but her ROM tested normal;
she was administered a sixteenth cortisone injection. Id.
Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has demonstrated grounds for a substantial
award for pain and suffering - higher than what has been recommended by Respondent.
Treatment of Petitioner’s injury required two shoulder surgeries, 17 PT sessions, one
MRI, and sixteen steroid injections. Nevertheless, the maximum allowable amount of pain
and suffering the Act permits, and which she requests - $250,000.00 – is excessive based
on comparable cases.5
Petitioner has cited to a plethora of cases which all provide good comparable
points to the instant case. She specifically has focused her analysis on Schoonover v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1324V, 2020 WL 5351341 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
5 Prior pain and suffering determinations are not binding on this decision. See Nance v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 06–730V, 2010 WL 3291896 at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2010); Hanlon v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 625, 630 (1998) (“Special masters are neither bound by their own
decisions nor by cases from the Court of Federal Claims, except, of course, in the same case on remand.”).
These cases, however, provide persuasive guidance herein.
4

Case 1:20-vv-01317-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/14/25 Page 5 of 6
Augt. 5, 2020) (awarding $200,000.00 in actual pain and suffering and $39,600.00 for
future pain and suffering); and Lawson v. Sec’y of Heath & Hum. Servs., No. 18-882V,
2021 WL 688560 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan 5, 2021) (awarding $205,000.00 in past pain
and suffering to a Petitioner who underwent three surgeries). Petitioner also, briefly, cites
to four additional cases: McAuliffe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1507V,
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jul. 28, 2020) (two surgery case which was settled for $200,000.00);
Welch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-74V, 2021 WL 1795205 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 5, 2021) (awarding $210,000.00 in a case with three surgeries); McDorman v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-814V, 2021 WL 5504698 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 18, 2021) (awarding $200,000.00 in a case with two surgeries); and Elmakky v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-2032V, 2021 WL 6285619 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec.
3, 2021) (awarding $205,000.00).
These cases provide helpful comparable awards for the instant case, but do not
support an award of pain and suffering at the top of the “cap.” There is no doubt that
Petitioner suffered a moderate to severe SIRVA. She initially reported severe pain levels
of up to 10/10. Even following her first surgery and attending 17 PT sessions, Petitioner
reported pain levels of 3/10 at rest and up to 6/10 with activity. However, despite the
overall length, Petitioner’s course of treatment and the gaps therein suggest an injury with
waxing and waning symptoms that was able generally be managed by the many steroid
injections she received.
Petitioner places great weight on the fact that she has received 16 steroid
injections to manage her shoulder pain – a number far greater than what is seen in most
SIRVAs. But I cannot conclude on this record that the need for so many steroid injections
was solely attributable to the degree of her pain. Rather, it is likely that her specific treating
physicians were willing to provide these shots, rather than adopt a more conservative
approach. And other aspects of her treatment were less extreme. For example, Petitioner
underwent only 17 PT sessions, on the lower end of the cases she cited; the petitioner in
Schoonover underwent twice the number of PT sessions, while the petitioner in Welch
underwent “dozens” of PT sessions. Two of Petitioner’s cited cases, Lawson and Welch,
also involve petitioners who underwent three shoulder surgeries. I deem these treatment
elements as relevant to the award I should issue as the number of steroid shots received.
Based on the cited cases and the record as it stands, Petitioner is entitled to an
award of $198,000.00 for past pain and suffering. Petitioner’s overall pain and suffering
was roughly comparable to what petitioners in the aforementioned cases experienced –
but not necessarily worse. I find McDorman to be the closest analog to the instant case.
That petitioner underwent ten steroid injections but also over 50 PT sessions along with
two surgeries. 2021 WL 5504698 at *3.
5

Case 1:20-vv-01317-UNJ Document 52 Filed 02/14/25 Page 6 of 6
Respondent has failed to offer any comparable cases to support his proposed
figure of $165,000.00. At the oral argument, Respondent argued that this figure was
based on Respondent’s view that the instant case was best understood to be a one-
surgery case. When Petitioner first had an MRI of her left shoulder, it did not reveal any
rotator cuff tearing; but following her second surgery, the post-operative diagnoses
included a full-thickness rotator cuff tear. Respondent attributed this to a fall Petitioner
had at work in which she also injured and received treatment for her left wrist.
However, there is nothing in the record which would indicate that Petitioner’s work
incident caused any aggravation to her ongoing left shoulder issues. Indeed, Respondent
notes that when Petitioner saw PA Franceskino for left wrist pain in June and July 2021,
she did not report left shoulder pain during either visit. Response at 10. This suggests
that Petitioner’s rotator cuff tear is likely more related to the ongoing wear and tear
incurred by using her compromised shoulder rather than a specific trauma event.
In reaching my decision at the hearing, I noted that I considered this to be a two-
surgery case and would award an amount of pain and suffering reflecting that. While
Respondent is correct that subacute harms like rotator cuff tears are not attributable
directly to a SIRVA, they are often unmasked in the process of treating the SIRVA, and
in this case I do not ascertain sufficient evidence to distinguish treatment of these
concerns from the SIRVA itself.
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, Petitioner is
awarded a lump sum of $198,610.00 (representing $198.000.00 in past pain and
suffering and $610.00 in past unreimbursable expenses), to be paid through an
ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be
available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this Decision.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 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.
6