VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01882
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01882
Petitioner: Kelly Joyce
Filed: 2020-12-16
Decided: 2024-03-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-11-08
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 1569302

AI-assisted case summary:
Kelly Joyce filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 8, 2019. The vaccine record did not specify the vaccination site, but the court determined that the flu vaccine was most likely administered in her left shoulder and that her pain onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Respondent conceded that Petitioner had met the requirements for a Table SIRVA and was entitled to compensation. The case proceeded to a damages hearing. The court awarded Kelly Joyce $1,569,302.82, reflecting $1,325,375.00 for past and future lost wages, $215,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $26,063.60 for future pain and suffering, and $2,864.22 for past unreimbursed expenses. This award was based on the parties' agreement on most damages and the court's determination of the net present value of future pain and suffering, considering the statutory cap.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01882-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-01-18
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/14/2021) regarding 26 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1882V
UNPUBLISHED
KELLY JOYCE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 14, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Site of Vaccination
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Nancy Tinch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On December 16, 2020, Kelly Joyce 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on November 8, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 4, 38-39. Petitioner further alleges that
her SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine she received. Id. at ¶¶ 38, 40.
Acknowledging that the vaccine record does not indicate the site of administration,
Petitioner nevertheless maintains there is preponderant evidence to establish the vaccine
1 Because this unpublished Fact 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 Fact 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-01882-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 8
was administered in her left shoulder as alleged. Id. at ¶ 4. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
For the reasons discussed below, I find the flu vaccine was most likely
administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder, as alleged, and that onset of Petitioner’s pain
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
The day after she filed the Petition, Ms. Joyce filed an affidavit and most of the
medical records required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-16, ECF No. 6; see Section
11(c). Over the subsequent seven-month period, she filed additional prior and updated
medical records. Exhibits 17-24, ECF Nos. 11-14, 16-17. Petitioner also filed a status
report citing entries in her medical records which, she argues, show she received the
November 8, 2019 vaccine in her left shoulder as alleged. Status Report, filed July 19,
2021, ECF No. 18.
On September 21, 2021, Respondent filed a status report indicating that “[a]t this
time, Respondent’s counsel does not wish to file briefing regarding the site of
vaccination.” Status Report, ECF No. 21. In October and November 2021, Petitioner filed
additional medical records including a copy of her worker’s compensation settlement
agreement. Exhibits 25-30, ECF Nos. 22, 24-25. Petitioner also filed a status report
reiterating her request for a fact ruling regarding the site of vaccination and disagreeing
with Respondent’s assertion that I should delay this factual determination until the HHS
review is completed. ECF No. 23.
Given the current backlog of vaccine cases awaiting the HHS review which has
existed for several years, I have consistently encouraged the parties to vaccine injury
cases to identify and address factual issues which do not require medical expertise, and
thus can be decided prior to the HHS review. The factual issue regarding vaccine
administration situs in this case fits squarely in that category. For the sake of judicial
efficiency, I will simultaneously address the issue of the onset of Petitioner’s pain. These
issues are now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether (a) Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in his
injured left arm, and (b) Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after vaccine
administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as required in the Vaccine
Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42
2

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/22 Page 3 of 8
C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XIV.B. (2017) (Table entry for SIRVA following the influenza
vaccination); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Section 11(c)(1).
A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment,
test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of
petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1).
“Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records
contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy
has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, 2005 WL 6117475, at *19.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
3

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/22 Page 4 of 8
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the following findings regarding site of vaccination and onset after a
complete review of the record, including medical records, affidavits, and other additional
evidence filed showing:
• The vaccine record indicates Petitioner received a flu vaccine on November
8, 2019, at her placement of employment - Tufts Medical Center. Exhibit 2
at 4. The method and site of vaccination are not indicated. Id. Email
exchanges between Petitioner’s counsel and personnel at Tufts Medical
Center indicate the site of vaccination is not recorded in the electronic
database. Id. at 1-3.
• In her affidavit, Petitioner alleged that she received the flu vaccine in her
left, non-dominant shoulder. Exhibit 3 at ¶ 3. She added that she “always
received [her] annual flu shot in [her] non-dominant left arm, and . . .
specifically recall[ed] that [she] received the November 8, 2019 flu shot in
[her] left shoulder.” Id. Petitioner described pain which began a few hours
after vaccination and increased to a severe level which prevented her from
performing her duties as a nurse. Id. at ¶ 5.
• Six days post-vaccination, on the morning of November 14, 2019, Petitioner
sought medical care from a provider at Tufts Medical Center, Dr. John
Doyle. Exhibit 4 at 12. The description she provided at this visit – of left
shoulder pain which began several hours after vaccination and which
gradually increased until severe – matches the assertions in Petitioner’s
affidavit. Petitioner was referred to the orthopedic clinic and excused from
work until re-evaluated. Id.
4

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/22 Page 5 of 8
• At her orthopedic appointment that same day, Petitioner complained of “left
shoulder pain after receiving a flu shot on 11/8/19.” Exhibit 4 at 38
(November 14, 2019 orthopedic visit). She indicated that she returned to
work post-vaccination and did not recall any complications until the next
day. Id. Upon examination, the orthopedist, Dr. Charles Cassidy observed
no swelling, warmth, or tenderness upon palpitation. He diagnosed
Petitioner with biceps tendonitis, “likely due to inflammation around her
biceps tendon.” Id. at 40.
• The next day on November 15, 2019, Petitioner completed an Employee
Incident Report regarding a flu shot injury to her left arm. Exhibit 4 at 117.
• On November 18, 2019, Petitioner returned for a follow-up appointment with
Dr. Doyle. Exhibit 4 at 13. Relaying Dr. Cassidy’s opinion – that there was
not an infectious process occurring and that the pain was due to biceps
tendonitis, Petitioner described sharp pain with certain movements. Dr.
Doyle excused Petitioner from work for the rest of the week. Id.
• When seen again at the orthopedic clinic on November 25, 2019, Petitioner
again reported severe pain which began the day after her November 8,
2019 vaccination. Exhibit 5 at 14. Dr. Cassidy diagnosed Petitioner with
adhesive capsulitis and discussed treatment options. Petitioner opted for
physical therapy (“PT”). Id. at 16.
• Following this November 25, 2019 orthopedic visit, Petitioner provided a
telephone update to Dr. Doyle. Exhibit 4 at 13. She indicated she would
contact the local PT office and would provide another update on December
2, 2018. In this record, it was noted that Petitioner had declined a steroid
injection. Id.
• When seen again by Dr. Doyle at 8:10AM on December 2, 2019, Petitioner
expressed an interest in receiving a steroid injection from Dr. Cassidy, who
she believed was seeing patients that day. Exhibit 4 at 14.
• Later that day, Dr. Cassidy provided the requested steroid injection. Exhibit
4 at 32. He noted that Petitioner “continues to have vague shoulder
symptoms following a flu vaccination . . . [but] symptoms [which were] not
consistent with any one diagnosis.” Id. He assessed Petitioner as having
“[s]ubacromial impingement of [the] left shoulder.” Id.
5

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/22 Page 6 of 8
• During her first PT session from 1:00PM until 2:00PM on December 2, 2019,
Petitioner again reported left shoulder pain and frozen shoulder due to the
administration of the flu vaccine on November 8, 2019. Exhibit 6 at 8.
Attending a total of four PT sessions in December 2019 and failing to return
thereafter, Petitioner was discharged on April 6, 2020. Exhibit 6 at 12-19.
• When treated by Dr. Doyle on December 9, 2019, Petitioner reported slight
improvement following the cortisone injection and PT. Exhibit 4 at 14. She
was excused from work for the remainder of the week. Id.
• Seen again by Dr. Cassidy on January 6, 2020, it was noted that Petitioner’s
injury was most consistent with adhesive capsulitis, but that she was
recovering faster than expected given the nature of her disease. Exhibit 4
at 28.
• Petitioner provided another telephone update to Dr. Doyle on January 14,
2020, indicating she continued to have left shoulder pain and difficulties with
certain movements. Exhibit 4 at 16. She was instructed to continue PT and
remain at home. Id.
• At her next appointment with Dr. Doyle on January 28, 2020, Petitioner
continued to report left shoulder pain and difficulties performing certain
tasks. Exhibit 4 at 17.
• On February 7, 2020, Petitioner underwent an MRI. Exhibit 4 at 23. She
again reported “left shoulder pain post-vaccination.” Id. The MRI revealed
“[f]ull-thickness tear of the anterior supraspinatus . . . with moderate
underlying tendinosis, . . . [p]robable focal tear of the anterior labrum, . . .
[m]arked fluid within the subacromial subdeltoid bursa.” Id.
• Petitioner has provided the documentation connected to her worker’s
compensation claim which includes an April 13, 2020 email from Dr. Todd
M. O’Brien and an August 6, 2020 letter from Dr. David C. Morley, Jr.,
communicating both physician’s opinions that Petitioner’s left shoulder
injury was due to the flu vaccine she received on November 8, 2019. Exhibit
15 at 1-2 (Dr. O’Brien’s email); Exhibit 11 at 4-6 (Dr. O’Brien’s letter).
In every post-vaccination record containing a medical history, from the time she
first sought treatment on November 14, 2019 (only six days post-vaccination), Petitioner
consistently described left shoulder pain as beginning a few hours post-vaccination,
6

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/22 Page 7 of 8
increasing thereafter to a severe level which interfered with her ability to work by the next
day. Without fail, she attributed her injury to the flu vaccine she received on November 8,
2019. Petitioner provided extremely consistent accounts of her injury and the onset of her
pain. While these entries were based upon information provided by Petitioner, they still
should be afforded greater weight than more current representations, as they were
uttered contemporaneously with Petitioner’s injury for the purposes of obtaining medical
care.
The Federal Circuit has stated that “[m]edical records, in general, warrant
consideration as trustworthy evidence . . . [as they] contain information supplied to or by
health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions.” Cucuras,
993 F.2d at 1528 (emphasis added). Thus, the Circuit has instructed that greater weight
should be accorded to this information even when the information is provided by
Petitioner.3
The vaccine record clearly supports Petitioner’s claims of receiving the flu vaccine
in her left arm on November 8, 2019, and experiencing left shoulder pain within 48 hours
thereafter. There is nothing in the vaccine record or medical records in this case to
indicate administration was in Petitioner’s other arm (right) or that the onset of Petitioner’s
pain was not within 48 hours as Petitioner consistently reported. And the fact that situs is
not itself corroborated by a medical record does not rebut the combination of Petitioner’s
contemporaneous reports to treaters of a left-shoulder vaccination and her own witness
statements. Thus, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the vaccination
alleged as causal in this case was administered to Petitioner in the left deltoid, and that
onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
V. Scheduling Order
Based on recent data, I expect the HHS review to be completed in this case in
February 2022. In the meantime, it is appropriate for Petitioner to forward a demand and
supporting documentation to Respondent prior to the HHS review.Thus, Petitioner should
finalize her demand which she may forward to Respondent, along with her supporting
documentation, at any time.
3 Additionally, Petitioner has provided evidence, related to Petitioner’s worker’s compensation claim, that
two different physicians concluded her injury was due to the flu vaccine she received on November 8, 2019.
It would be illogical for these physicians to have reached this conclusion absent a belief that Petitioner
received the vaccine in question in her left, injured arm (although that belief does not independently
establish situs).
7

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/18/22 Page 8 of 8
Petitioner shall file a status report indicating the date by which she conveyed
or expects to convey her demand and supporting documentation to Respondent
by no later than Friday, January 14, 2022.
Respondent shall file a status report indicating how he intends to proceed
by no later than Tuesday, February 15, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01882-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-06-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/03/2022) regarding 39 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 43 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1882V
UNPUBLISHED
KELLY JOYCE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 3, 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)
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Nancy Tinch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 16, 2020, Kelly Joyce 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on November 8, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 4, 38-39. Petitioner further alleges that
her SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine she received, that she received the
vaccine in the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more
than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil case or received
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-01882-UNJ Document 43 Filed 06/16/22 Page 2 of 2
compensation for her SIRVA injury. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 38, 40, 42-44. The case was assigned to
the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Because the vaccine record in this case did not indicate the site of vaccination,3 I
issued a fact ruling on December 14, 2021, finding the flu vaccine was most likely
administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder, as alleged, and that onset of Petitioner’s pain
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. ECF No. 26. Thereafter, Respondent filed a Rule
4(c) Report recommending compensation be awarded in this case. Rule 4(c) Report at 1,
ECF No. 38. Reserving his right to appeal my fact ruling (id. at 12-13) and based upon
my factual findings and the record as it currently stands, Respondent “has concluded that
[P]etitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 13.
Furthermore, he “does not dispute that that [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites
for compensation under the Act.” 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
3 In her petition, Ms. Joyce also acknowledges that the vaccine record does not indicate the site of
administration. Petition at ¶ 4; see Exhibit 2 at 4 (vaccine record).
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01882-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-16
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/12/2023) regarding 77 Scheduling Order, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 83 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1882V
KELLY JOYCE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 12, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON DAMAGES1
On December 16, 2020, Kelly Joyce 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on November 8, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 4, 38-39. On May 3, 2022, I issued a ruling
on entitlement, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Because the parties could not
informally resolve the issue of damages, I allowed the retention of vocational experts,
1 Because this Ruling 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 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 (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 83 Filed 10/16/23 Page 2 of 3
ordered the parties to file briefs setting forth their respective arguments, and held a
damages hearing on September 11, 2023.
Petitioner seeks $225,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $2,500 per year for the
remainder of her life for future pain and suffering, $2,864.22 for past unreimbursed
expenses, and an undetermined amount for past and future lost wages. Respondent
recommends an award of $165,000.00 for past pain and suffering. Regarding the other
types of compensation sought by Petitioner, he maintains there is insufficient evidence to
support the amounts claimed.
After listening to the testimony provided by Petitioner, her spouse, and the parties’
vocational experts, I issued an oral ruling on the compensation to be awarded for
Petitioner’s past and future pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses. I also
provided guidance related to past and future lost wages and set deadlines for expert
reports from the parties’ economists. An official recording of the proceeding was taken by
a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully
adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded.
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, I find that $215,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering and $1,000.00
per year for life - reduced to net present value3, represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s projected pain and suffering. I also find
that Petitioner is entitled to $2,864.22 in actual unreimbursable expenses.
Petitioner shall file her economist’s expert report, briefing, and additional
evidence regarding actual and projected lost wages by no later than Monday,
October 02, 2023. Respondent shall file his economist’s expert report and briefing
regarding actual and projected lost wages by no later than Monday, October 31,
2022. Because the $250,000.00 statutory cap should be applied prior to the reduction of
Petitioner’s projected pain and suffering award to net present value,4 the parties should
provide proposed amounts for this compensation, including the discount rate
applied.
3 Under the Vaccine Act, compensation payments are based upon the net present value of any award.
Section 15(f)(4)(A).
4 Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)) (discussing the application
of the requirements of Section 15(a)(4) and Section 15(f)(4)(A)).
2

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 83 Filed 10/16/23 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01882-3
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-22
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/20/2024) regarding 90 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 96 Filed 03/22/24 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1882V
KELLY JOYCE,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: February 20, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 16, 2020, Kelly Joyce 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury or, in the alternative a causation-in-fact
claim, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 8, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶
4, 38-40.
For the reasons set forth below, incorporating the agreement of the parties on
some issues, and consistent with my earlier ruling related to Petitioner’s pain and
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).

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 96 Filed 03/22/24 Page 2 of 6
suffering award and unreimbursed expenses,3 I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award
of damages in the amount $1,569,302.82, reflecting $1,325,375.00 for past and future lost
wages, $215,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $26,063.60 for future pain and suffering,
and $2,864.22 for past unreimbursed expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
On December 17, 2020 (the day after this claim was initiated), Ms. Joyce filed the
affidavit and medical records required by the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-16, ECF No. 6. On
February 5, 2021, the case was activated and assigned to the Special Processing Unit
(OSM’s process for attempting to resolve certain, likely-to-settle claims). ECF No. 8. Over
the subsequent six-month period, Petitioner continued to file any updated medical records
and relevant documentation. Exhibits 17-24. ECF Nos. 11-17.
Because the vaccine record did not indicate the site of vaccination, after giving the
parties the opportunity to provide additional evidence and briefing (ECF No. 20), I issued
a fact ruling, determining the flu vaccine was most likely administered in Petitioner’s left
shoulder, as alleged. See Joyce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1882V, 2021
WL 6504389 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 14, 2021) (ECF No. 26). For the sake of judicial
efficiency, I simultaneously addressed the issue of the pain onset, finding it occurred
within 48 hours. Id. at *1. Prior to and after I issued this ruling, Petitioner continued to
provide additional updated medical records, including documentation from her workers’
compensation claim. Exhibits 25-34, ECF Nos. 22, 24-25, 29, 32, 34-35.
On April 29, 2022, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report, stating that, while
reserving his right to appeal my situs and onset determinations, he believed that Petitioner
had met the requirements for a Table SIRVA. ECF No. 38. Four days later, I issued a
ruling, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 39.
During the subsequent six-month period, the parties attempted to informally
resolve the issue of damages. See, e.g., Status Reports, filed July 14, 2022, ECF Nos.
45-46; Status Report, filed Oct. 19, 2022, ECF No. 56. Throughout this time, Petitioner
continued to file updated medical records and documentation related to her claim for lost
wages and unreimbursable expenses, including a report from Petitioner’s vocational
expert. Exhibits 35-52, ECF Nos. 41, 44, 47, 52-53, 57.
3 Joyce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1882V, 2023 WL 6811015 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 12,
2023).
2

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 96 Filed 03/22/24 Page 3 of 6
On November 8, 2022, the parties informed me they were unable to reach an
informal agreement and requested that I conduct a hearing to determine the appropriate
amount of damages. ECF No. 59. Prior to the September 2023 hearing, Respondent filed
his vocational expert’s report, and Petitioner filed additional updated medical records,
other evidence, and a supplement report from her vocational expert. Exhibits A-B, ECF
Nos. 60, 67; Exhibits 53-70, ECF Nos. 61-65, 68, 73, 75. Pre-hearing briefing revealed
additional evidence and argument related to lost wages would be needed following the
hearing. See Order, issued Aug. 23, 2023, ECF No. 74.
At the damages hearing, conducted on September 11, 2023, I issued an oral ruling,
finding Petitioner entitled to $215,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $1,000.00 per year
for future pain and suffering, and $2,864.22 for past unreimbursed expenses. Joyce, 2023
WL 6811015, at *2 (ECF No. 77). I also provided guidance related to past and future lost
wages and set deadlines for expert reports from the parties’ economists regarding that
compensation, as well as the net present value of the future pain and suffering award. Id.
During the subsequent three-month period, Petitioner filed two expert reports from
his economist and a letter related to Petitioner’s workers’ compensation claim, and
Respondent filed his economist’s expert report. See Exhibits 71-74, ECF Nos. 78-79, 86;
Exhibit C, ECF No. 84. In their most recent briefs, the parties informed me they had
agreed upon the appropriate amount of past and future lost wages ($1,325,375.00), and
dispute only the appropriate net present value of the future pain and suffering award.
Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Res. Latest Brief”), filed Dec. 1, 2023, at 6, ECF No.
88; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Pet. Latest Brief”), filed Dec.
1, 2023, at 1, ECF No. 89 (waiving her earlier request for compensation due to a loss of
household services and accepting Respondent’s proposed amount of lost wages).
II. Net Present Value of Projected Pain and Suffering Award
Due to the Vaccine Act’s statutory cap of $250,000.00 for any pain and suffering
award, which must be applied prior to the reduction of the portion attributable to future
pain and suffering to its net present value,4 the future award in this case is limited to
$35,000.00.5 The parties agree that, based upon Petitioner’s life expectancy, she would
otherwise be entitled to a greater award. Res. Latest Brief at 5; Pet. Latest Brief at 2 n.1.
4 See Section 15(a)(4) (statutory limit for actual and projected pain and suffering); Section 15(f)(4)(A)
(requirement regarding net present value for future compensation); Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 32 F.3d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir.1994) (requiring the application of the statutory cap before any
projected pain and suffering award is reduced to net present value).
5 This amount is calculated by subtracting the amount awarded for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering,
$215,000.00, from the statutory cap of $250,000.00.
3

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 96 Filed 03/22/24 Page 4 of 6
To reduce this amount to its net present value, Petitioner proposes that I apply the
multipronged approach previously employed in Dillenbeck, which uses a discount rate of
one-percent for the first fifteen years and two-percent thereafter, resulting in a future pain
and suffering award of $26,063.60. Pet. Latest Brief at 1-2 (citing Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs, No. 17-0428V, 2019 WL 4072069, at *15 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July
29, 2019)). Asserting that discount rates have historically ranged between one and three-
percent, he insists that this approach already accounts for fluctuating treasury interest
rates. Id. at 2 (citing Mulloy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1396V, 2023 WL
2620653, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 24, 2023)).
Respondent counters that a two-percent discount rate for all years is more
appropriate, resulting in a future pain and suffering award of $25,156.00. Res. Latest Brief
at 6. Emphasizing that the ruling in Dillenbeck was based upon a decision which is more
than seven years old (Neiman), he maintains that Dillenbeck “is objectively and patently
outdated.” Id. (citing Dillenbeck, 2019 WL 4072069, at *15); see also Neiman v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-0631V, 2016 WL 7741742 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 31,
2016)). He stresses that the basis for applying the rates in Dillenbeck, historically low
treasury rates, no longer applies. Res. Latest Brief at 6.
To further support his position, Respondent cites the report from his economist,
Patrick F. Kennedy, Ph.D., which contains a detailed section regarding the appropriate
discount rate to be used when calculating the net present value of the future lost wages
award. Res. Latest Brief at 5 (citing Exhibit C at 8). As Dr. Kennedy explains, the
appropriate discount rate to be used during this calculation is based upon two factors: 1)
the growth in future wages and 2) the interest a lump sum award will earn over time.
Exhibit C at 8. Based upon economic projections which show the current higher interest
and inflation rates are expected to decrease moderately in 2025 and 2026, Dr Kennedy
concluded the second criteria (a factor relevant to all future awards) translates to a
discount rate of 1.5 percent. He further reduced the rate by .2 percent to account for wage
growth (a factor relevant only to future lost wages compensation). Exhibit C at 8-14. And
the parties have accepted these calculations.
Although Dr. Kennedy utilized a two percent discount rate when calculating the net
present value of the future pain and suffering award, he clearly states that he is doing so
at Respondent’s direction. Exhibit C at 8. If I instead used a discount rate 1.5 percent (as
was accepted for the lost wages reduction), without any modification for wage growth, the
4

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 96 Filed 03/22/24 Page 5 of 6
resulting amount would be $27,075.59,6 an amount greater than even Petitioner’s
proposed amount. Thus, I find that Dr. Kennedy’s report offers only tepid support for the
two-percent discount rate proposed by Respondent. Instead, it lends credence to
Petitioner’s argument that the multipronged approach she proposes more properly
accounts for rate fluctuations, although arguably the order of the rates should be
reversed.
I agree that the lower treasury rates which formed the basis of the multipronged
approach Petitioner proposes no longer exist. However, as Dr. Kennedy opines, the
current higher rates are unlikely to continue for more than a few years, certainly not for
the 35-year period covered by the future pain and suffering award. Therefore, I find the
amount proposed by Petitioner reflects a more accurate reflection of the appropriate net
present value. Respondent has not provided sufficient evidence to warrant the use of the
two-percent discount rate he proposes for the entire thirty five-year period.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, I will adopt the net present value of
Petitioner’s future pain and suffering proposed by Petitioner. Pursuant to my earlier
ruling, I therefore award Petitioner $215,000.00 for actual pain and suffering,
$26,063.60 for projected pain and suffering, and $2,864.22 for her actual
unreimbursable expenses. Furthermore, I find the parties’ agreed upon amount of
actual and projected lost wages, $1,325,375.00 is reasonable.
Thus, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $1,569,302.82, representing
$1,325,375.00 for actual and projected lost wages, $215,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, $26,063.60 for projected pain and suffering, and $2,864.22 for actual
unreimbursable expenses in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.7
6 This result is obtained when designating yearly payments beginning one year from the date of this
Decision, compounding annually. See https://accuratecalculators.com/present-value-of-an-annuity-
calculator (last visited Feb. 20, 2024).
7 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.
5

Case 1:20-vv-01882-UNJ Document 96 Filed 03/22/24 Page 6 of 6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6