VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01662
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01662
Petitioner: Eric Mates
Filed: 2020-11-23
Decided: 2024-07-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-20
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 135635

AI-assisted case summary:
Eric Mates, a 38-year-old IT specialist, filed a petition on November 23, 2020, alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on November 20, 2019. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on March 25, 2022, conceding that Mr. Mates satisfied the criteria for a Table injury and was entitled to compensation. The case then proceeded to a damages determination, as the parties were unable to resolve the matter informally. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over the proceedings. Mr. Mates sought $200,000.00 for pain and suffering, citing prompt treatment, pain levels of four to five out of ten initially, and two arthroscopic surgeries. He compared his case to others involving multiple surgeries and injuries spanning over three years, which received awards between $185,000.00 and $200,000.00. The respondent argued for an award of $135,000.00, emphasizing Mr. Mates' lower reported pain levels of two out of ten after his first surgery, attributing some symptoms to a pre-existing cervical radiculopathy condition, and noting a significant gap in treatment following his second steroid injection. The respondent also highlighted that Mr. Mates' later symptoms and second surgery occurred after a nearly thirteen-month gap in treatment. Chief Special Master Corcoran reviewed the medical records, noting Mr. Mates experienced mildly limited range of motion and initially moderate pain. He received one arthroscopic surgery on July 15, 2020, approximately nine months post-vaccination. A cervical MRI performed prior to vaccination revealed findings involving the C5 to C7 vertebrae, and some post-vaccination symptoms like neck pain and finger numbness were considered more likely related to his cervical issues. A shoulder MRI showed findings consistent with SIRVA but also conditions unlikely to have been aggravated by vaccination. After surgery, Mr. Mates reported fluctuating pain levels, but by his last physical therapy session on October 22, 2020, his pain had decreased significantly. He received a second steroid injection in May 2021, which provided good relief. However, Mr. Mates did not seek further treatment until June 2022, after an almost 13-month gap. An MRI at that time revealed findings likely secondary to postsurgical changes, and diagnoses included osteoarthritis and adhesive capsulitis. Another orthopedist concluded that many of Mr. Mates' current symptoms were likely associated with cervical spine pathology. Chief Special Master Corcoran found insufficient evidence to connect Mr. Mates' later symptoms and second surgery, performed in November 2022, to the SIRVA from 2019. The Special Master concluded that Mr. Mates suffered a relatively mild SIRVA for approximately 19 months, involving one arthroscopic surgery, two cortisone injections, and a modest amount of physical therapy. Comparing his case to similar SIRVA claims with awards ranging from $130,000.00 to $135,000.00, such as Amor, Anglewicz, Blanco, and Majerus, which involved mild to moderate pain, SIRVAs lasting 10 to 30 months, one surgery, and moderate physical therapy, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Mr. Mates $135,000.00 for pain and suffering and $635.00 for unreimbursed expenses, for a total award of $135,635.00. The decision was issued on July 16, 2024.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Eric Mates, age 38, received an influenza vaccine on November 20, 2019, and subsequently developed a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Respondent conceded entitlement, acknowledging that Petitioner satisfied the criteria for a Table injury. The case proceeded to damages. Petitioner sought $200,000.00 for pain and suffering, citing prompt treatment, initial pain levels of four to five out of ten, and two arthroscopic surgeries. Respondent argued for $135,000.00, emphasizing lower pain reports of two out of ten after the first surgery, attributing some symptoms to a pre-existing cervical radiculopathy, and noting a significant treatment gap. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the medical records, finding Petitioner experienced mild to moderate pain and limited range of motion, underwent one arthroscopic surgery, received two steroid injections, and participated in physical therapy over approximately 19 months. The Special Master determined that some symptoms were likely related to a pre-existing cervical condition and that there was insufficient evidence to connect later symptoms and a second surgery to the SIRVA. Citing comparable SIRVA cases with awards between $130,000.00 and $135,000.00, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Petitioner $135,000.00 for pain and suffering and $635.00 for unreimbursed expenses, totaling $135,635.00. The decision was issued on July 16, 2024. Petitioner's counsel was Maximillian J. Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP. Respondent's counsel was Madalyn Louise Yarc of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01662-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-05-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/30/2022) regarding 25 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1662V
UNPUBLISHED
ERIC MATES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 30, 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)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Amanda Pasciuto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On November 23, 2020, Eric Mates 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”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to him on
November 20, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On March 25, 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 states that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI).”
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-01662-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 2
Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has suffered the residual effects of his
condition for more than six months. 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-01662-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-16
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/11/2024) regarding 45 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1662V
ERIC MATES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 11, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Madalyn Louise Yarc, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 23, 2020, Eric Mates 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”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine administered to him on November 20, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶ 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters. 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 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 Less than one month after I determined Petitioner was entitled to compensation, he informed me that the
parties had reached an impasse in their damages discussions and requested that I set a briefing schedule.
Status Report, filed Apr. 20, 2022, ECF No. 27.

Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount $135,000.00, reflecting actual pain and suffering. The parties
have also agreed Petitioner is entitled to $635.00 for unreimbursed expenses.4
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
.
4 Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages (“Brief”) at 1 n.1, 11; Respondent’s Brief Addressing Damages
(“Opp.”) at 1, 13; Petitioner’s Reply to Opp. (“Reply”) at 1 n.1, 3.
2

Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 3 of 9
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.5 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of
vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
The Graves court maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering awards
into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is compared
to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 590. Instead, Graves
assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering
awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the
Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely
cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible
awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards.
II. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU6
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of January 1, 2024, 3,696 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU
on July 1, 2014. Compensation was awarded in 3,588 of these cases, with the remaining
108 cases dismissed.
2,075 of the compensated SPU SIRVA cases were the result of a reasoned ruling
that petitioner was entitled to compensation (as opposed to an informal settlement or
concession).7 In only 200 of these cases, however, was the amount of damages also
5 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.
6 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.
7 The remaining 1,513 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
3

Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 4 of 9
determined by a special master in a reasoned decision.8 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.9
The data for all groups described above reflect the expected differences in
outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated10
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 200 1,846 29 1,513
Lowest $40,757.91 $10,000.00 $45,000.00 $2,500.00
1st Quartile $70,000.00 $61,338.13 $90,000.00 $36,000.00
Median $88,974.23 $81,049.85 $130,000.00 $53,500.00
3rd Quartile $125,007.45 $110,000.00 $162,500.00 $80,000.00
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 200 SPU SIRVA cases in which damages were the result of a reasoned
decision, compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from
$40,000.00 to $210,000.00, with $85,000.00 as the median amount. Only nine of these
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.
8 The rest of these cases resulting in damages after concession were either reflective of a proffer by
Respondent (1,846 cases) or stipulation (29 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.
9 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 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).
10 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
4

Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 5 of 9
cases involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from
$250.00 to $1,500.00.11
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 eight cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
A. The Parties’ Arguments
The only disputed damages component is the amount to be awarded for
Petitioner’s pain and suffering. Petitioner seeks $200,000.00. Brief at 1, 11; Reply at 1, 3.
In contrast, Respondent argues for an award of only $135,000.00. Opp. at 1, 13.
When arguing for this greater pain and suffering award, Petitioner emphasizes his
prompt pursuit of treatment (12 days post-vaccination), reports of pain levels of five and
11 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-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 6 of 9
four out of ten when first seeking treatment on December 2, 2020, and prior to receiving
his second steroid injection on May 19, 2021, respectively, and two arthroscopic surgeries
performed in 2020 and 2022. Brief at 8-9. He favorably compares the facts and
circumstances in his case with three other cases involving two surgeries and injuries
spanning more than three years - Pruitt, M.W., and Meindorf - involving pain and suffering
awards ranging from $185,000.00 to $200,000.00.12 Brief at 7-8, 10-11.
To support his characterization of a milder SIRVA injury, Respondent stresses
Petitioner’s consistent reports of lower pain levels (two out of ten) prior to and after his
first arthroscopic surgery. Opp. at 10. He also attributes some of Petitioner’s symptoms,
especially those reported after the first arthroscopic surgery to an unrelated co-existing
condition, cervical radiculopathy. Id. at 10-11. And he emphasizes that Petitioner’s later
complaints of more severe symptoms and second arthroscopic surgery occurred after an
almost-thirteen-month gap in treatment following the second (post-surgical) steroid
injection in May 2020, and one month after the parties reached an impasse in their
damages discussions. Id. Respondent does not cite any comparable SIRVA cases, but
attempts to distinguish the cases cited by Petitioner, insisting Petitioner suffered a more
moderate SIRVA injury. Id. at 11-12.
B. 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 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, including the
medical records and affidavits filed 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
ultimately base my determination on the circumstances of this case.
The medical records show Petitioner suffered a SIRVA involving mildly limited
range of motion (“ROM”) and initially moderate pain (four to five out of ten).13 Although a
12 Pruitt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0757V, 2021 WL 5292022 (Fed. CL. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 29,
2021) (awarding $185,000.00 for pain and suffering); M.W. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0267V,
2021 WL 3618177 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 17, 2021) (awarding $195,000.00 for pain and suffering);
Meirndorf v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1876V, 2022 WL 1055475 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
7, 2022) (awarding $200,000.00 for pain and suffering).
13 Exhibit 2 at 85-88 (emergency room visit on December 2, 2019); Exhibit 8 at 6-9 (primary care provider
visit on January 8, 2020); Exhibit 4 at 25-28 (orthopedic visit on January 13, 2020).
6

Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 7 of 9
steroid injection, administered approximately three months post-vaccination, provide only
a few days of pain relief, Petitioner reported lower pain levels (usually two out of ten) at
physical therapy (“PT”) and orthopedic visits thereafter.14 He underwent arthroscopic
surgery on July 15, 2020, approximately nine months post-vaccination. Exhibit 4 at 33.
During this time, Petitioner (a 38-year-old IT specialist) also underwent a cervical
MRI, that was ordered in August 2019 (approximately two months prior to vaccination) in
response to his complaints of lower back pain. See Exhibit 4 at 30-32 (orthopedic visit for
back pain on August 6, 2019). And some of the symptoms Petitioner reported post-
vaccination, such as neck pain and numbness in his fingers, were more likely related to
his cervical issues. See Exhibit 2 at 80; Exhibit 8 at 6; Exhibit 4 at 25, 20 (in chronologic
order). Performed on January 20, 2019, the MRI revealed findings involving the C5 to C7
vertebrae. Exhibit 3 at 3-4. After reviewing these results, the orthopedist added a
diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy when treating Petitioner’s left shoulder and neck pain
on February 13, 2020. Exhibit 4 at 22.
Additionally, a left shoulder MRI, performed on February 20, 2020, showed findings
consistent with Petitioner’s SIRVA, but also some conditions, such as a small
anteroinferior paralabral cyst, unlikely to have been aggravated by vaccination. Exhibit 3
at 2. Thus, not all of Petitioner’s pain and suffering during this time can be attributed to
his SIRVA.
For two months post-surgery, Petitioner reported pain levels fluctuating from two
to ten. Exhibit 4 at 7; Exhibit 10 at 7. By his fifth post-surgical PT session on September
15, 2020, his pain had decreased to one, with no current pain and accompanying
temporary increases in severity related to activity. Exhibit 12 at 57. Petitioner reported
this same pain level (zero to one) at his twelfth and last post-surgical PT session on
October 22, 2020. Id. at 83. Although Petitioner reported more moderate pain (four out of
ten) at orthopedic appointments in February and May 2021, he obtained good relief from
a second steroid injection administered on May 19, 2021. Exhibit 10 at 28.
Petitioner did not seek treatment again until June 16, 2022, after an almost 13-
month gap in treatment. Exhibit 11 at 4-8. It is important to note that this visit occurred
approximately 18-months after this claim was initiated and two months after the parties
reached an impasse in their damages discussions. An MRI, performed on that visit (on
June 9, 2022), revealed a previously-identified cyst and findings “likely secondary to
postsurgical changes.” Id. at 10. And the orthopedist diagnosed Petitioner with
osteoarthritis and adhesive capsulitis. Exhibit 14 at 11-12. Furthermore, a different
orthopedist, from whom Petitioner sought a second opinion in September 2022,
14 Exhibit 4 at 20, 15 (orthopedic visits on February 13 and March 16, 2020, respectively); Id. at 45 (reporting
intermittent pain an=t levels of one to two at a PT session on March 10, 2020).
7

Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 8 of 9
concluded that “much of the symptoms that he is complaining about today in the office
are likely associated with cervical spine pathology.” Exhibit 13 at 7. There is not sufficient
evidence to connect Petitioner’s later symptoms and second surgery, performed in
November 2022, to the SIRVA he suffered three years earlier in late 2019.
Overall, the record supports a finding that Petitioner suffered a relatively mild
SIRVA for approximately 19 months, featuring one arthroscopic surgery, two cortisone
injections, and a modest amount of PT prior to and post-surgery. As a result, the cases
cited by Petitioner are inadequate comparables. Instead, I find that the facts and
circumstances of Petitioner’s case more closely resemble those in Amor, Anglewicz,
Blanco, and Majerus, involving pain and suffering awards ranging from $130,000.00 to
$135,000.00.15 These cases involved mild to moderate pain levels, SIRVAs lasting from
10 to 30 months, one arthroscopic surgery, one to four steroid injections, and moderate
amounts of PT. Like this case, I found there was insufficient evidence in Anglewicz to
connect later treatment to her SIRVA. Anglewicz at 7.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $135,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.16 I also find that Petitioner
is entitled to $635.00 in actual unreimbursable expenses.
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $135,635.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
Section 15(a).
15 Amor v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0978V, 2024 WL 1071877 (Fed. CL. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 8,
2024) (awarding $130,000.00 for pain and suffering); Anglewicz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
1504V, (May 24, 2024), found on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited June 10, 2024) (awarding
$130,000.00 for pain and suffering); Blanco v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1361V, 2020 WL
4523473 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6, 2020) (awarding $135,000.00 for pain and suffering); Majerus v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1346V, 2023 WL 4573215 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2020) (awarding
$135,000.00 for pain and suffering).
16 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
8

Case 1:20-vv-01662-UNJ Document 49 Filed 07/16/24 Page 9 of 9
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with the Decision.17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
17 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
9