VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01783
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01783
Petitioner: Laura Cosden
Filed: 2020-12-07
Decided: 2023-03-13
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-03-27
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 111703

AI-assisted case summary:
Laura Cosden filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination on March 27, 2020. The respondent conceded that Ms. Cosden was entitled to compensation, finding that she satisfied the criteria for a SIRVA on the Vaccine Injury Table. The case proceeded to determine damages, which were limited to pain and suffering and unreimbursable expenses. Ms. Cosden sought $125,000 for pain and suffering and $1,703.10 for expenses, while the respondent argued for $85,000 for pain and suffering. The medical records indicated that Ms. Cosden experienced moderate to severe shoulder pain for approximately five months following the vaccination, which included physical therapy and ultimately arthroscopic surgery. She also had limitations due to a prior reaction to cortisone injections. The court found that while her injury was significant, her treatment period was relatively short, and she experienced a good outcome post-surgery. Ultimately, the court awarded Ms. Cosden $110,000 for pain and suffering and $1,703.10 for unreimbursable expenses, for a total award of $111,703.10.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01783-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-04-15
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/14/2022) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01783-UNJ Document 34 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1783V
UNPUBLISHED
LAURA COSDEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 14, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 7, 2020, Laura Cosden 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 right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccination on March 27, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the
vaccine was administered within the United States, that she suffered from her injury for
more than six months, and that neither Petitioner nor any other party has received
compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Petition
at 4-5. 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-01783-UNJ Document 34 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 2
On March 9, 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 concluded that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for a SIRVA. Id.
at 5. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 6.
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-01783-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-13
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/09/2023) regarding 43 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01783-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/13/23 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1783V
UNPUBLISHED
LAURA COSDEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 9, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap); Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine Injury
(SIRVA)
Bridget McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 7, 2020, Laura Cosden 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 a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered on March 27, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
Although the parties agreed Petitioner should receive compensation for her injury, they
could not resolve the damages to be awarded, so the matter was submitted for an SPU
Motions Day hearing.
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-01783-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/13/23 Page 2 of 6
For the reasons discussed below, and after hearing argument from the parties, I
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of $111,703.10, representing
$110,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $1,703.10 in unreimbursable expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Approximately 15 months after this case was initiated, Respondent filed his Rule
4(c) Report on March 9, 2022, conceding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation.
ECF No. 29. A ruling on entitlement was subsequently issued on March 14, 2022. ECF
No. 31.
On March 30, 2022, Petitioner filed a status report indicating that the parties came
to an impasse in their damages discussions. ECF No. 33. Petitioner filed her brief in
support of damages on July 13, 2022. Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Damages (“Br.),
ECF No. 37. Respondent file a reply on September 2, 2022. Respondent’s Brief on
Damages (“Opp.”), ECF No. 39. I proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to
argue their positions at a “Motions Day” hearing, at which time I would decide the disputed
issues. ECF. No. 41. That hearing was held on December 2, 2022,3 and the case is now
ripe for decision.
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.
Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in her right shoulder on March 17, 2020. Ex. 1
at 33. She first reported shoulder pain during an urgent care visit on April 10, 2020, rating
it as “8/10” at that time. Id. at 8.
Petitioner saw Dr. John Sefter at WellSpan Orthopedics for right shoulder pain and
weakness on April 27, 2020. Ex. 2 at 126. At the time she rated her pain as moderate
(4/10). Id. at 131. She showed decreased and painful range of motion upon exam, and
was assessed with tendinitis. A Medrol dosepak and physical therapy was the course of
treatment.
On April 29, 2020, Petitioner began physical therapy. Ex. 10 at 94. She rated her
pain as five out of ten at that time and showed signs of impingement. Between April 29,
3 At the end of the hearing held on December 3, 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-01783-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/13/23 Page 3 of 6
2020 and May 27, 2020, Petitioner attended four physical therapy sessions. Id. at 74, 80,
84, 94. She rated her pain from moderate to severe during this period. See id. at 72
(record from May 12, 2020 rating her pain as five out of ten); 84 (record from May 6, 2020
rating her pain as two-three out of ten).
On May 19, 2020, Petitioner returned to WellSpan orthopedics for continued
shoulder pain that was not improving with physical therapy. Ex. 2 at 106. At that time, she
rated her pain as severe (seven out of ten). Id. at 110. An MRI on May 26, 2020 showed
a bone marrow edema, mild tendinosis and tendinopathy with a partial tear of the
supraspinatus, mild bursitis, and impingement. Ex. 14 at 56-59.
Petitioner was again seen at WellSpan Orthopedics on June 16, 2020 for
continued shoulder pain that she felt was worsening. Ex. 2 at 79. She reported her pain
as seven out of ten and exhibited signs of impingement and tenderness along her bicep.
Id. at 83.
Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery on August 3, 2020. Ex. 6 at 234. The
procedures consisted of a right supraspinatus repair and manual debridement. Id. 234-
35.
Petitioner attended twenty-four post-operative physical therapy sessions between
August 25, 2020, and January 5, 2021. Ex. 10 at 49, Ex. 13 at 7-17. Initially, she
complained of moderate pain, rating it as five out of ten on August 25, 2020. Ex. 10 at 49.
However, she improved thereafter noting minimal or no pain as early as October 23, 2020.
Ex. 13 at 117 (record from October 23, 2020, rating her pain as two out of ten); 104 (record
from December 4, 2020 reporting no pain in her shoulder at that time). She was 90%
better by January 5, 2021 (id. at 42) and discharged from post-operative physical therapy
on January 19, 2021 (id. at 7-20).
Petitioner was last seen for post-surgical follow-up on April 27, 2021. She indicated
that she continued to have some “achy” days but was doing much better than before
surgery with good range of motion and strength. Ex. 14 at 15-16.
III. Damages
The parties have briefed damages in this case, which is limited to pain and
suffering. Petitioner requests an award of $125,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and
$1,703.10 for unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. Br. at 1. Respondent argues that an
award of $85,000.00 for past pain and suffering is reasonable in this case. Opp. at 1.
3

Case 1:20-vv-01783-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/13/23 Page 4 of 6
Respondent does not dispute the requested amount for unreimbursed out-of-pocket
expenses, and I therefore will grant that sum in its entirety. Br. at 1.
A. Legal Standards for Damages Awards
In several recent decisions, I have discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within the SPU. I fully
adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections III and IV of Leslie v. Sec’y
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0039V, 2021 WL 837139 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 28,
2021) and Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1486V, 2021 WL 836891
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 25, 2021), as well as Sections II and III of Tjaden v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-419V, 2021 WL 837953 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 25,
2021).
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 Pain and Suffering
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 all medical records, declarations, plus all filings submitted by both
Petitioner and Respondent and their arguments made during Motions Day. I have also
considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases
and relied upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, my determination is
ultimately based upon the specific circumstances of this case.
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)).
4

Case 1:20-vv-01783-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/13/23 Page 5 of 6
Citing six prior damages decisions awarding $125,000.00 for pain and suffering,
Petitioner requests an award of $125,00.00.5 Petitioner argues that she suffered a
moderate to severe SIRVA that required surgical intervention and treatment over a period
of thirteen months that included numerous physical therapy sessions and ultimately
arthroscopic surgery. Br. at 10. Petitioner also notes that her treatment was complicated
by restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and her inability to receive cortisone
injections due to a prior anaphylactic reaction. Id.
Respondent maintains that a pain and suffering award of $85,000.00 is
appropriate. Opp. at 7. Respondent contends that Petitioner’s injury was not as severe
as those cited in support of her argument. Id. at 7-11. Respondent highlights the fact that
Petitioner actively treated for nine months, had an excellent recovery. Further, Petitioner
reported minimal pain seven months after her vaccination, and near full range of motion
with good strength by nine months post vaccination. Id. at 7-8. Respondent cites to Hunt
for the proposition that this case should merit a lower award that other damages cases.
Hunt v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2022) (awarding $95,000.00 for pain and suffering).
The evidence indicates that Ms. Cosden suffered a mild-to-moderate SIRVA injury
over approximately nine months. She sought treatment soon after her vaccination, and
her pain was significant (5-8/10) for approximately five months until she underwent
surgery. See Ex. 1 at 8 (reporting pain levels of eight out of ten on April 10, 2020); Ex. 2
at 79-83 (reporting pain levels of seven out of ten on June 16, 2020). Further, her initial
treatment including physical therapy was largely ineffective. Ex. 2 at 79. Additionally, Ms.
Cosden was unable to have cortisone injections due to a prior reaction, limiting her
options. Id. Petitioner’s August 3, 2020, surgery was successful, and she showed
improvement thereafter. Less than two months after her surgery, Petitioner reported
minimal or no pain, and was 90% better by January 5, 2021. Ex. 13 at 117 (reporting on
October 23, 2020, minimal pain during physical therapy session); 42 (reporting she was
approximately 90% back to normal on January 5, 2021).
These factors indicate that Petitioner experienced moderate to severe pain for
approximately five months, and minimal pain for an additional four months. Further, the
bulk of her treatment occurred over a period of nine months, and consisted of an MRI,
two rounds of physical therapy totaling 28 sessions, and surgery.
5 Dobbins v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., No. 16-854V, 2018 WL 4611267 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. August
15, 2018); Nute v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-140V, 2019 WL 6125008 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 6, 2019);
Randazzo v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., No. 18-1513V (Fed. Cl. Feb. 1, 2021); Smith v. Sec’y of
Health and Hum. Servs., No. 19-745V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 28, 2021); Reynolds v. Sec’y of Health
and Hum. Servs., No. 19-1108V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2021); McNabb v. Sec’y of Health and Hum.
Servs., No. 19-1945V (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 1, 2022).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01783-UNJ Document 49 Filed 03/13/23 Page 6 of 6
Because of the above, $85,000.00 is too low an amount for Petitioner’s pain and
suffering. However, I also find that $125,000.00 requested by Petitioner is too high. As
Respondent correctly notes in his brief, Ms. Cosden’s treatment period was relatively
short, only about nine months. She also experienced a positive outcome post-surgery
and recovered fairly quickly. Opp. at 9-11.
I therefore find that the $110,000.00 is appropriate compensation here. This is
supported by other cases involving surgery that had similar courses of treatment and
severity. See, e.g., Wilt v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0446V, 2020 WL
1490757, at (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 24, 2020) (awarding $110,000.00 for pain and
suffering); Wylie v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1314V, 2022 WL 17968929, at
*1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 7, 2022). For example, in Wilt, the petitioner underwent
surgery and experienced a similar period of significant pain (six months), however the
pain was consistently described as less severe (6-7 out of 10). The Wilt petitioner also
had a good outcome post-surgery, only describing some achiness 10 months after the
vaccination. Ms. Cosden experienced a slightly shorter treatment period, but also
described slightly higher pain levels.
Conclusion
I find that, for all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of
the record as a whole, $110,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Ms. Cosden’s actual pain and suffering.6 I also grant Ms.
Cosden’s request for $1,703.10 for past unreimbursed medical expenses.
Accordingly, I approve a Vaccine Program award in the total amount of
$111,703.10, to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed
pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment
herewith.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See § 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)).
7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or
separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
6