VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01982
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01982
Petitioner: Shirley Scott
Filed: 2020-11-30
Decided: 2026-03-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-30
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 197323

AI-assisted case summary:
Shirley Scott received an influenza vaccine on October 30, 2019. She subsequently developed significant pain and limited range of motion in her right shoulder, which was diagnosed as a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Although initially considered a Table claim, the court found that her symptoms, including neck pain, did not meet all the criteria for a Table SIRVA. However, the court determined that the vaccine was the but-for cause of her shoulder injury, granting entitlement as an off-Table claim. The case proceeded to damages, where Ms. Scott sought compensation for her extensive medical treatment, including two surgeries, 121 physical therapy sessions, and multiple steroid injections. Respondent argued that her injury was not severe and that she had recovered. After reviewing the evidence and comparable cases, the court awarded Ms. Scott $2,323.33 for out-of-pocket expenses and $195,000.00 for pain and suffering, totaling $197,323.33. The court noted that while her condition progressed to a severe case of SIRVA, including frozen shoulder, her recovery was considered better than some highly severe SIRVA cases, justifying an award within the established range for such injuries.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine on October 30, 2019, age 36, causing right shoulder injury. COMPENSATED. The Table SIRVA theory failed because the record reflected neck and radiating symptoms outside the vaccinated shoulder, but Special Master Gowen granted causation-in-fact based on immediate shoulder pain, persistent shoulder dysfunction, and the record as a whole. Damages were awarded March 5, 2026, after entitlement had been granted September 25, 2024. Award recorded as $197,323. Attorney: Jeffrey S. Pop.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01982-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-22
Pages: 26
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 9/25/2024) regarding 42 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (kis) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 1 of 26
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: September 25, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHIRLEY SCOTT, *
* Special Master Sanders
Petitioner, *
v. * No. 20-1982v
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Matthew Murphy, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 28, 2020, Shirley Scott (“Petitioner) filed a petition pursuant to the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that the administration of the influenza
(“flu”) vaccine she received on October 30, 2019, caused a right shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged her injury as a Table claim with
a presumption of causation, and in the alternative, a causation-in-fact claim with a theory of
causation. ECF No. 26 at 2.
After carefully analyzing and weighing all of the evidence presented in this case in
accordance with the applicable legal standards,3 I find that Petitioner has met her legal burden.
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 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act,” “the Act,” or “the Program”). Hereafter, individual section references
will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
3 While I have reviewed all of the information filed in this case, only those filings and records that are most
relevant to the decision will be discussed. Moriarty v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 844 F.3d 1322, 1328
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We generally presume that a special master considered the relevant record evidence even
though he does not explicitly reference such evidence in his decision.”) (citation omitted); see also Paterek
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 527 F. App’x 875, 884 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Finding certain information
not relevant does not lead to—and likely undermines—the conclusion that it was not considered.”).
1

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 2 of 26
Petitioner has not provided preponderant evidence that she suffered from a SIRVA, but she has
provided preponderant evidence that the flu vaccine she received on October 20, 2019, is the but-
for cause of her right shoulder injury. Accordingly, Petitioner, is entitled to compensation.
I. Procedural History
The petition, filed on December 28, 2020, alleged that Petitioner suffered from a Table
SIRVA as a result of a flu vaccination. Pet. at 1. On December 30, 2020, Petitioner filed seven
exhibits, including vaccination records, medical records, and a declaration. See Petitioner’s
Exhibits (“Pet’r’s Exs.”) 1–7, ECF No. 6. Petitioner filed additional exhibits with updated medical
records on November 16, 2021. Pet’r’s Exs. 9–10, ECF No. 15. On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed
seven exhibits, including multiple declarations. Pet’r’s Exs. 12–18, ECF No. 25. That same day,
Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record. Pet’r’s Mot., ECF No. 26. I issued a scheduling
order directing Respondent to respond to Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record in his Rule
4(c) report. Sched. Order, issued on May 17, 2022. I also indicated that expert reports may be
necessary before determining entitlement due to some evidence of a superior labrum4 anterior to
posterior (“SLAP”) tear. Id.
On July 7, 2022, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report in which he recommended against
compensating Petitioner for her alleged injury. See Respondent’s Report (“Resp’t’s Report”) at 1,
ECF No. 27. Respondent averred that Petitioner failed to meet her burden to establish a Table
SIRVA claim for three reasons: (1) Petitioner did not establish by preponderant evidence that her
right shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination; (2) Petitioner’s pain was not limited to
her right shoulder; and (3) Petitioner had a history of neuropathic pain, cervical radiculopathy, and
degenerative disc disease which all reflect alternative causation to explain Petitioner’s symptoms.
Id. at 8–9. Respondent further argued that Petitioner failed to meet her burden to establish a
causation-in-fact SIRVA claim because Petitioner did not establish that she suffered a specific
shoulder injury and there was no expert report to articulate a medical theory in support of this
claim. Id. at 9–10. Petitioner filed her reply to Respondent’s response articulated in his Rule 4(c)
report on July 13, 2022. Pet’r’s Reply, ECF No. 28.
On August 16, 2022, I stayed Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record to allow the
parties to proceed with expert reporting. Sched. Order, ECF No. 31. Petitioner filed an expert
report from Mark Bodor, M.D., accompanied by a curriculum vitae (“CV”) and medical literature
on September 23, 2022. Pet’r’s Exs. 19–20, ECF No. 32. Respondent filed a responsive expert
report from Geoffrey Adams, M.D., along with his CV and medical literature on January 19, 2023.
Resp’t’s Exs. A–B, ECF No. 35. On February 22, 2023, Petitioner filed a supplemental expert
report from Dr. Bodor with medical literature. Pet’r’s Ex. 21, ECF No. 36.
I held a status conference on March 27, 2023, to discuss the evidence presented in this
matter. Sched. Order, ECF No. 37; see also Min. Entry, docketed on Mar. 30, 2023. On April 13,
2023, Respondent filed a status report indicating his position that the filings in this matter were
4 A SLAP tear occurs “when you tear cartilage in the inner part of your shoulder joint. The tears can be
caused by injury or overuse and make it painful or difficult for you to move your shoulder and arm.”
Cleveland Clinic (July 26, 2024, 1:58pm), https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21717-slap-tear.
2

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 3 of 26
sufficient to decide Petitioner’s Table claim on the record. Status Report, ECF No. 38. This matter
is now ripe for a ruling on entitlement.
II. Summary of the Relevant Evidence
a. Medical Records
i. Vaccination
On October 30, 2019, Petitioner received an intramuscular flu vaccination in her right arm
at Walmart Pharmacy in Flowood, Mississippi. Pet’r’s Ex. 2 at 3–4, ECF No. 6-3.
ii. Post -Vaccination Medical History
On November 20, 2019, twenty-one days after vaccination, Petitioner saw her primary care
physician (“PCP”), Dr. Tobe Momah, for an annual physical. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 117–18, ECF No. 6-
5. Petitioner reported “neck pain and spasm” after her flu vaccination, which limited her movement
during exercise. Id. Dr. Momah prescribed diclofenac sodium 1% gel5 for topical treatment of
Petitioner’s neck muscle spasm. Id. at 120.
On December 10, 2019, forty-one days after vaccination, Petitioner returned to her PCP
and saw Dr. Ardarian Pierre with complaints of “right arm pain since receiving flu shot.” Id. at
124. Petitioner reported that the symptoms began “4-5 weeks ago” and she found “some relief”
with ice. Id. A physical examination showed a normal range of motion of Petitioner’s right
shoulder. Id. Dr. Pierre prescribed 750mg of Robaxin6 and 800mg of Ibuprofen7 and advised
Petitioner to avoid exercise and weightlifting with her right arm until the symptoms resolved. Id.
at 125.
On December 19, 2019, Petitioner returned to Dr. Momah with complaints of new onset
“sharp pain in the right shoulder” after her flu vaccination. Id. at 129. Petitioner reported
“decreased mobility, sharp pain and increased tenderness in the right shoulder.” Id. Petitioner
graded her pain as “10/10, worsening and sharp.” Id. Petitioner noted that “she was in normal
health” until the flu vaccination. Id. Petitioner further reported that the over-the-counter
5 Diclofenac sodium 1% gel “is used to treat pain and other symptoms of arthritis of the joints . . . such as
inflammation, swelling, stiffness, and joint pain.” Mayo Clinic (July 26, 2024, 2:01pm),
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/diclofenac-topical-application-route/side-effects/drg-
20063434?p=1.
6 Robaxin is the “trademark for preparations of methocarbamol.” Robaxin, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary
Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=44009 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
Methocarbamol is a “skeletal muscle relaxant, administered orally, intramuscularly, or intravenously in
the treatment of painful musculoskeletal conditions.” Methocarbamol, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=30925 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
7 Ibuprofen is “a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug derived from propionic acid and having also
analgesic and antipyretic actions; administered orally in the treatment of pain, fever, dysmenorrhea,
osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and other rheumatic and nonrheumatic inflammatory disorders, and in
the treatment and prophylaxis of vascular headaches.” Ibuprofen, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=24560 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
3

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 4 of 26
medications, prescriptions, and ice did not resolve her pain. Id. A physical examination showed
decreased range of motion in Petitioner’s right shoulder and neck pain and stiffness. Id. at 130. Dr.
Momah diagnosed Petitioner with neuropathic pain8 of the right shoulder, acromioclavicular joint
osteoarthritis9, shoulder impingement10, and cervical radiculopathy.11 Id. at 131–32. Dr. Momah
prescribed Petitioner 75mg of Lyrica12 and 50mg of Ultram13 and ordered x-rays of the right
shoulder and cervical spine.14 Id. at 133–34. Petitioner was also referred to physical therapy. Id.
The cervical spine x-ray revealed “chronic degenerative disc changes [] most pronounced at C4-
4, C5-6.” Id. at 139. The right shoulder x-ray revealed “mild osteoarthritis” of the
acromioclavicular15 and glenohumeral joints.16 Id. at 142.
8 Neuropathic pain, or neurogenic pain, is “pain, such as that occurring in causalgia or herpetic neuralgia,
that results from direct stimulation of nervous tissue of the peripheral or central nervous system (except
for sensitized C fibers), generally felt as burning or tingling and often occurring in an area of sensory
loss.” Neurogenic Pain, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/
definition?id=95722 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
9 Osteoarthritis is “a noninflammatory degenerative joint disease seen mainly in older persons,
characterized by degeneration of the articular cartilage, hypertrophy of bone at the margins, and changes
in the synovial membrane. It is accompanied by pain, usually after prolonged activity, and stiffness,
particularly in the morning or with inactivity.” Osteoarthritis, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=35780 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
10 Impingement is “advancement of one thing out of its expected place to where it may collide with
something else.” Impingement, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com
/dorland/definition?id=24971 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
11 Cervical radiculopathy is “radiculopathy of cervical nerve roots, often with neck or shoulder pain;
compression of nerve roots is a common cause in this area.” Cervical Radiculopathy, Dorland’s Med.
Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=101392 (last visited Sept. 16,
2024).
12 Lyrica is a “trademark for a preparation of pregabalin.” Lyrica, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=29107 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024). Pregabalin is
“a derivative of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) having anticonvulsant and antinociceptive effects, used in
the treatment of neuropathic pain in diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia; administered orally.”
Pregabalin, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id
=40751 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
13 Ultram is a “trademark for a preparation of tramadol hydrochloride.” Ultram, Dorland’s Med.
Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=51748 (last visited Sept. 16,
2024). Tramadol hydrochloride is “an opioid analgesic used for the treatment of moderate to moderately
severe pain following surgical procedures and oral surgery; administered orally.” Tramadol
Hydrochloride, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/
definition?id=50542 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
14 The cervical spine is “the part of the spine comprising the cervical vertebrae.” Cervical Spine,
Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=107685 (last
visited Sept. 16, 2024). The cervical vertebrae are “the upper seven vertebrae, constituting the skeleton of
the neck. Symbols C1 through C7.” Cervical Vertebrae, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=117925 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
15 The acromioclavicular joint is “the synovial joint between the acromion of the scapula and the acromial
extremity of the clavicle.” Articulatio Acromioclavicularis, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=59038 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
16 The glenohumeral joint is “the joint formed by the head of the humerus and the glenoid fossa of the
scapula.” Glenohumeral Joint, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/
dorland/definition?id=83534 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
4

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 5 of 26
On December 27, 2019, Petitioner began physical therapy at the University of Mississippi
Medical Center (“UMMC”) for right shoulder pain with Stacey Lee, DPT. Id. at 145. During her
initial evaluation, Petitioner reported pain since her flu shot which had worsened since onset. Id.
Petitioner also noted that she “never had neck or shoulder issues prior to this onset.” Id. Petitioner
rated her current pain at 6.5/10. Id. A physical examination revealed range of motion restrictions
with flexion17 at 85 degrees, abduction18 at 58 degrees, and external rotation19 at 20 degrees with
mild to moderate strength deficits. Id. at 147–48. By January 3, 2020, Petitioner completed three
sessions of physical therapy. Id. at 161. At this session, Petitioner indicated that she desired to stop
physical therapy until her orthopedic follow-up to discuss magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”)
results. Id. at 162. Petitioner’s reported pain was 2/10, and she was advised to continue with pain-
free activities. Id.
On January 2, 2020, Petitioner underwent an MRI. Id. at 160. The impression was “[h]igh-
grade near full-thickness articular[20] surface tear involving the majority of the supraspinatus
tendon with tendinosis[21][,] [t]ear of the superior labrum [(SLAP)] [, and] [m]oderate AC joint
osteoarthritis.” Id.
On January 22, 2020, Petitioner returned to UMMC to see orthopedic surgeon Dr. William
Geissler reporting right shoulder pain since her flu shot. Id. at 172. Petitioner noted that the pain
was constant and “radiate[d] down to her elbow.” Id. Petitioner also reported that the pain
prevented her from sleeping. Id. Because of the pain, Petitioner could not “raise her arm in front
of her and [could not] raise it behind” and “[felt] weak with overhead activities and some
numbness.” Id. A physical examination revealed flexion at 45 degrees, abduction of 45 degrees,
and external rotation of 60 degrees Id. Dr. Geissler’s impression was right torn rotator cuff22 and
17 Flexion is “the act of bending or condition of being bent.” Flexion, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=18796 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
18 Abduction is “the act of abducting or state of being abducted.” Abduction, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary
Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=101 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024). The
abduction-external rotation test is performed when “the patient raises the arms to 180° above the
shoulders, abducts them, bends the elbows, and opens and closes the fists for 3 minutes; reproduction of
symptoms is a positive outcome.” Roos Test, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=112908 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
19 The external rotation method is “closed reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation by adducting the arm
to the patient's side with the elbow flexed to 90 degrees as the patient lies supine, then rotating the arm
externally using the forearm as a lever.” External Rotation Method, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=89093 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
20 Articular is “of or pertaining to a joint.” Articular, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=4301 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
21 Tendinosis or tendinitis is the “inflammation of tendons and of tendon-muscle attachments.” Tendinitis,
Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=49150 (last
visited Sept. 16, 2024).
22 The rotator cuff is “a musculotendinous structure about the capsule of the shoulder joint, formed by the
inserting fibers of the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and subscapularis muscles, blending with
the capsule and providing mobility and strength to the shoulder joint.” Rotator Cuff, Dorland’s Med.
Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=67782 (last visited Sept. 16,
2024).
5

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 6 of 26
SLAP lesion. Id. Petitioner noted that physical therapy did not provide relief and requested surgery.
Id.
Petitioner underwent arthroscopic debridement of the labrum and biceps tendon release of
the right shoulder by Dr. Geissler on February 18, 2020. Id. at 800. Petitioner saw Dr. Geissler for
a two-week post-operative visit on March 9, 2020. Id. at 220. A shoulder x-ray revealed a rotator
cuff repair and subacromial decompression without complication. Id. at 217. Petitioner began post-
operative physical therapy at UMMC on March 23, 2020. Id. at 223. Petitioner attended fifty-five
sessions, through September 9, 2020. Id. at 561.
On July 13, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Geissler for a five-month post-operative visit. Id. at
360. Petitioner complained of a “frozen shoulder” with “pain about the shoulder that radiate[d] up
about the base of the neck area, supraclavicular area” and “decreased motion.” Id. A physical
examination revealed range of motion restrictions with a flexion of 90 degrees and abduction of
90 degrees with mild strength deficits. Id. Dr. Geissler diagnosed Petitioner with adhesive
capsulitis23 and administered a Depo-Medrol24 injection in her right shoulder. Id. Dr. Geissler
further advised Petitioner to continue physical therapy. Id. Petitioner returned for a seven-month
post-operative follow-up appointment on September 14, 2020. Id. at 576. Dr. Geissler found
Petitioner made “absolutely no improvement” since her last visit and advised to proceed with a
procedure. Id. at 577.
On September 22, 2020, Petitioner underwent an arthroscopic manipulation and
debridement of adhesions and right shoulder decompression by Dr. Geissler. Id. at 801–02. During
the procedure, Dr. Geissler noted that Petitioner’s “shoulder was quite stiff. We could not
manipulate it.” Id. at 667. The procedure included “a total capsule release from the 3 o’clock
position to the 9 o’clock position.” Id. Petitioner began physical therapy at Elite Physical Therapy
for post-operative rehabilitation on September 28, 2020. Pet’r’s Ex. 5 at 131, ECF No. 6-6.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler for a post-operative visit on September 30, 2020. Pet’r’s
Ex. 4 at 667. Petitioner was encouraged to use her shoulder as much as possible and to continue
with physical therapy. Id. at 667–68.
On November 18, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Momah for concerns of high blood pressure
and weight gain. Id. at 741. Petitioner noted that she was “unable to fully flex her right upper
23 Adhesive capsulitis is “adhesive inflammation between the joint capsule and the peripheral articular
cartilage of the shoulder with obliteration of the subdeltoid bursa, characterized by shoulder pain of
gradual onset, with increasing pain, stiffness, and limitation of motion.” Adhesive Capsulitis, Dorland’s
Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=62985 (last visited Sept.
16, 2024).
24 Depo-Medrol is the “trademark for preparations of methylprednisolone acetate.” Depo-Medrol,
Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=13281 (last
visited Sept. 16, 2024). Methylprednisolone acetate is “the 21-acetate ester of methylprednisolone,
administered topically as an antiinflammatory, by intramuscular injection in replacement therapy for
adrenocortical insufficiency, and by intra-articular, intramuscular, intralesional, or soft-tissue injection as
an antiinflammatory and immunosuppressant in a wide variety of disorders.” Methylprednisolone Acetate,
Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=89217 (last
visited Sept. 16, 2024).
6

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 7 of 26
extremity.” Id. Petitioner was encouraged to use Voltaren25 gel, to go to physical therapy, and to
follow up with her orthopedic surgeon. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler for a post-operative visit on December 2, 2020. Id. at
767. Dr. Geissler noted that Petitioner “still need[ed] some additional therapy in motion, but she
ha[d] improved significantly to what she was preoperatively.” Id. Petitioner reported that she was
“quite pleased and want[ed] to continue therapy” and no longer required pain medication. Id. A
physical examination revealed active flexion of 120, abduction of 120, external rotation of 60, and
strength 4/5. Id.
On February 2, 2021, Petitioner had her last visit for post-operative physical therapy.
Pet’r’s Ex. 8 at 7, ECF No. 11-2. Petitioner had a total of forty-nine visits. Id. Petitioner rated her
pain at 2/10, met three of her goals, and partially met the remaining three goals. Id. at 7–8.
Petitioner’s progress plateaued and she was advised to continue exercises at home. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler for a post-operative visit on February 3, 2021. Pet’r’s
Ex. 9 at 14, ECF No. 15-2. Petitioner reported improvement with her physical therapy but
requested additional pain medication. Id. A physical examination revealed flexion of 140 degrees,
abduction of 140 degrees, external rotation of 60 degrees, and mild strength deficits. Id. Dr.
Geissler prescribed Petitioner 50mg of Tramadol26 and encouraged her to do home exercises. Id.
at 14, 18.
On September 15, 2021, Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler for a one-year post-operative
visit. Id. at 32. Petitioner reported “some ache to her shoulder” and “a little bit of stiffness.” Id. A
physical examination revealed flexion at 140, abduction at 140, external rotation to 70, and
strength at 4/5. Id. Dr. Geissler administered a 40mg injection of Depo-Medrol and advised
Petitioner to return to physical therapy. Id.
Petitioner began an additional round of physical therapy at Elite Physical Therapy on
September 20, 2021. Pet’r’s Ex. 10 at 55, ECF No. 15-3. At her evaluation, Petitioner reported that
she recently “had more pain and difficulty lifting arm overhead and behind back.” Id. Petitioner
reported pain of 5/10 with a flexion and abduction of 130. Id. at 55–56.
25 Voltaren is a “trademark for preparations of diclofenac sodium.” Voltaren, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary
Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=53382 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
Diclofenac sodium is “the sodium salt of diclofenac, administered orally in the treatment of rheumatoid
arthritis, osteoarthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis and also for a variety of nonrheumatic inflammatory
conditions.” Diclofenac Sodium, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/
dorland/definition?id=69745 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024). “It is also applied topically to the conjunctiva to
inhibit miosis during and to reduce ocular inflammation or photophobia after certain kinds of ophthalmic
surgery and to the skin to treat actinic keratoses.” Id.
26 Tramadol hydrochloride is “an opioid analgesic used for the treatment of moderate to moderately
severe pain following surgical procedures and oral surgery; administered orally.” Tramadol
Hydrochloride, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/
dorland/definition?id=50542 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
7

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 8 of 26
By November 4, 2021, Petitioner completed fifteen physical therapy sessions. Id. at 10.
Petitioner’s pain was 1/10 with active flexion of 165 and abduction of 160. Id. Petitioner had full
strength. Id. at 10–11. Petitioner had met her long-term goals. Id. at 13.
On April 4, 2022, Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler with complaints that her shoulder was
“getting a little tight.” Pet’r’s Ex. 22 at 9, ECF No. 40-2. A physical examination revealed active
flexion of 160, abduction of 140, and strength 4/5. Id. Dr. Geissler advised that Petitioner did not
require further physical therapy because she had “good functional motion.” Id. Petitioner was
advised to continue at-home strengthening program. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler on March 6, 2024, for an evaluation after her shoulder
“suddenly locked up” two weeks ago. Id. at 144. Petitioner reported that she had a stomach
infection a few months ago and currently used a boot on her right foot. Id. at 144–45. A physical
examination revealed active flexion of 140, abduction of 120, external rotation of 70, and strength
at 4/5. Id. at 145. Dr. Geissler injected 4mg of Depo-Medrol into Petitioner’s right shoulder and
advised her to return in four months. Id. Dr. Geissler noted that Petitioner may require more than
one injection and if “she [did] not improve, she may be a candidate for arthroscopic debridement
of the calcium deposit.” Id.
b. Petitioner’s Declarations
On December 30, 2020, Petitioner filed a declaration, which was executed on December
28, 2020. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 4, ECF NO. 6-4. Petitioner recalled that she received a flu vaccination in
her dominant right shoulder on October 30, 2019. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner asserted that prior to the
vaccine, she “had no pain, inflammation or dysfunction in [her] right shoulder.” Id. Petitioner also
noted that she had “never sustained any injury to her right shoulder other than the injuries resulting
from the [vaccine].” Id.
Petitioner recalled that she felt “immediate pain at the injection site” and that the
pharmacist advised her that her muscle flinched during the administration of the vaccine and that
she would experience more soreness than usual for a few days. Id. at ¶ 4. Petitioner recalled that
“the pain worsened over the next several days” and she felt pain with certain movements and a
limited range of motion. Id. Petitioner managed her activities to limit her movement and managed
the pain with heat, ice, and over-the-counter pain medications. Id.
On November 20, 2019, Petitioner saw Dr. Momah, her PCP, for an annual physical and
reported the ongoing pain in her right shoulder and neck and the associated stiffness and spasms.
Id. at ¶ 6. Petitioner received a topical cream prescription to apply to her right shoulder. Id.
On December 10, 2019, Petitioner saw Dr. Pierre for her persistent right shoulder pain
because the topical cream had not resolved the pain. Id. at ¶ 7. Petitioner noted that Dr. Pierre
advised Petitioner to hydrate and ice her shoulder three times a day and prescribed ibuprofen and
flexeril.27 Id.
27 Flexeril is “trademark for a preparation of cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride.” Flexeril, Dorland’s Med.
Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=18790 (last visited Sept. 16,
8

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 9 of 26
Petitioner recalled returning to Dr. Momah on December 19, 2019, for a follow-up where
she complained that the medications were not helping her injury. Id. Petitioner also noted worse
right shoulder pain at night. Id. at ¶ 8. Petitioner received a prescription of Lyrica and Tramadol
and a referral to physical therapy. Id. Petitioner began physical therapy in December 2019 and
continued through January 2020. Id. at ¶ 9. Petitioner received an MRI of her right shoulder on
January 2, 2020. Id. at ¶ 10.
On January 22, 2020, Petitioner recalled a right shoulder evaluation with orthopedist Dr.
Geissler where he opined that the MRI showed a rotator cuff tear “around the same area where the
flu show was administered” and recommended surgery. Id. at ¶ 11. Petitioner underwent right
shoulder surgery on February 18, 2020, and was instructed to wear a sling. Id. at ¶ 12. By March
9, 2020, Petitioner returned for a post-operative visit with Dr. Geissler, who informed her that she
could remove the sling and begin physical therapy. Id. at ¶ 13. Petitioner underwent eighteen
sessions of physical therapy from March 23, 2020 through May 11, 2020. Id. at ¶ 14. Petitioner
also recalled that she was given exercises to do at home, which she did twice per day. Id. Petitioner
noted that she worked “very hard to get back to normal” but her “shoulder was still very painful.”
Id.
After a May 11, 2020 follow-up with Dr. Geissler, Petitioner was ordered to continue
physical therapy. Id. at ¶ 15. Petitioner underwent twenty-five physical therapy sessions from May
13, 2020 through July 10, 2020 and “had excruciating pain after each session” such that nothing
had hurt “so bad in [her] life.” Id. at ¶ 16. Petitioner recalled that the physical therapy provider
indicated that this was a “frozen shoulder.” Id. Petitioner stated that this was “a terrible feeling of
pain and [she] would often cry on [her] way back home from therapy.” Id. Petitioner continued to
ice her shoulder at night and struggled to sleep because of the pain, only able to sleep when
“propped up in bed.” Id.
On July 13, 2020, Petitioner recalled another follow-up with Dr. Geissler where she
reported the severe pain and frozen shoulder. Id. at ¶ 17. Dr. Geissler administered a steroid
injection in Petitioner’s shoulder and ordered additional physical therapy. Id. Dr. Geissler advised
Petitioner that if her shoulder did not improve, she may require an additional surgery to remove
scar tissue. Id. at ¶¶ 17–18. Petitioner underwent eleven physical therapy sessions from July 14,
2020 through September 9, 2020, where she “did not notice any improvement in [her] range of
motion,” and she “continued to have pain and functional limitations.” Id. at ¶ 18.
Petitioner recalled a vacation where she was “unable to enjoy any recreational activities,
such as tennis or jet skiing, because of [her] right shoulder pain and dysfunction.” Id. Petitioner
added that she was an “active person” and the injury from the vaccination prevented her from
enjoying many hobbies. Id.
2024). Cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride is “a compound structurally related to the tricyclic antidepressants,
used as a skeletal muscle relaxant for relief of painful muscle spasms; administered orally.”
Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/
dorland/definition?id=12135 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
9

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 10 of 26
On July 23, 2020, Petitioner had a visit with her PCP for high blood pressure with a
measurement of 179/96. Id. at ¶ 19. Petitioner received a prescription of cream and ibuprofen for
her right shoulder pain. Id.
Petitioner stated that on August 24, 2020, she turned down a “principal position at the
Mississippi Department of Correctional Center” due to her shoulder injury and the extensive
requirement for physical therapy and an additional surgery. Id. at ¶ 20.
Petitioner recalled a follow-up with Dr. Geissler on September 14, 2020, where “[a]fter
trying to move [her] arm, he immediately said [Petitioner] had frozen shoulder” and needed
surgery. Id. at ¶ 21. Petitioner underwent right shoulder surgery on September 22, 2020. Id. at ¶
22. Petitioner began physical therapy on September 28, 2020. Id. at ¶ 23. She stated that
“[a]lthough [she was] doing better with therapy, [she] still ha[d] weakness [and] limited range of
motion in [her] right shoulder.” Id. Petitioner noted that through December of 2020, she
“continue[s] to attend physical therapy to this day.” Id.
On September 30, 2020, Petitioner recalled a follow-up with Dr. Geissler where he advised
her to continue physical therapy and use her shoulder as much as possible. Id. at ¶ 24. On
November 18, 2020, Petitioner recalled an appointment with Dr. Momah for high blood pressure
where he recommended continued use of the pain cream. Id. at ¶ 25. On December 2, 2020,
Petitioner had a follow-up with Dr. Geissler where he prescribed six additional weeks of physical
therapy. Id. at ¶ 26.
Petitioner summarized her condition as follows:
I continue [to] have pain, limitations[,] and dysfunction in my right shoulder to this
day. Although my symptoms are improved, I continue to have weakness and limited
range of motion in my right shoulder. I still feel pain and tightness in my shoulder
with activities, and I continue to manage the pain with oxycodone when it gets bad.
I still have high blood pressure which I believe is related to my shoulder injury. My
quality of life has been significantly affected because this injury is to my dominant
right shoulder. I still have difficulty with activities of daily living involving the use
of my dominant right arm. I am still unable to enjoy recreational activities because
of my right shoulder pain and dysfunction. I still have nighttime pain and difficulty
sleeping due to the pain. I developed high blood pressure due to my shoulder injury
and the pain medications I had to take, and I am now taking two blood pressure
pills per day. I have come to the conclusion that even though I work very hard doing
exercise at home and attending physical therapy, my right shoulder will never be
the same as it was prior to the vaccination. As a result of my shoulder injury. I feel
that I will never be able to do the things I was able to do prior to the vaccination.
Id. at ¶ 27. Petitioner added that she suffered “residual effects from [her] right shoulder injury for
more than six months after the October 30, 2019 vaccination.” Id. at ¶ 28.
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration with additional details, which
was executed on May 11, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 12 at 3, ECF No. 25-2. Petitioner added that the
10

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 11 of 26
administering pharmacist of the vaccination at issue told her that “her muscle jumped” during
vaccination, which was going to cause more pain than usual. Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner noted that she
has a high pain tolerance and “tried to bear through it” but the pain continued to worsen. Id.
Petitioner “returned to the pharmacy and spoke with the administering pharmacist several times
over the next few weeks” and informed him that the pain was worsening. Id. The pharmacist
recommended ice and advised that it could take up to four weeks to subside. Id. Petitioner added
that she trusted him and had no reason to believe otherwise, noting that she “knew nothing about
SIRVA” and never was informed that she should see a doctor if the pain persisted. Id. Petitioner
recalled attempting to manage the pain with heat, ice, and Tylenol but it continued to worsen. Id.
Petitioner was “guarding [her] shoulder and holding [her] right arm up and against [her] body to
avoid the pain” which caused her right arm to appear shorter than her left and the pain crept from
her right shoulder into the right side of her neck. Id.
Petitioner added that she has had “severe pain in her right shoulder” since the vaccination
at issue. Id. at ¶ 7. She wrote that her diagnoses include “rotator cuff tear, tendinosis, impingement
syndrome, and adhesive capsulitis, all caused by the vaccination.” Id. Petitioner recalled that she
has attended 121 physical therapy sessions and underwent two surgeries. Id. Petitioner noted that
after her first surgery on February 18, 2020, she struggled living alone and maintaining household
chores to such a degree that she bought a train ticket for her sister from Chicago, Illinois to come
stay with her and assist during her recovery. Id. at ¶ 8.
Petitioner recalled that she paused her physical therapy sessions from February 4, 2021
through September 14, 2021, instead opting to perform the exercises at home, because she had
utilized half of the Medicare-covered physical therapy sessions and wished to spread them out over
her recovery. Id. at ¶ 9. Petitioner purchased a YMCA membership to continue water therapy and
shoulder exercises at the gym. Id. Petitioner returned to physical therapy from September 14, 2021
through November 4, 2021. Id. at ¶ 10. Upon discharge, Petitioner continued to do exercises on
her own at the YMCA. Id.
Petitioner noted that as of December of 2020, she continues to have “severe pain in [her]
right shoulder to this day” and feels that it will never be the same. Id. at ¶ 11. Driving long distances
causes Petitioner’s shoulder to be stiff and painful. Id. Petitioner stated that she “will never be able
to do simple things which [she] was previously able to do, such as washing [her] back by [herself]”
and that she misses restful nights of sleep. Id. Petitioner added that she “had to learn to live [with
her] shoulder limitations by modifying the way [she does] things and avoiding certain activities
that [] will cause increased pain.” Id.
c. Declaration of Anne Hanson
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration by Anne Hanson, which was executed on
May 10, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 13 at 1, ECF No. 25-3. Ms. Hanson stated that she is a water fitness
instructor and that Petitioner has attended her class for several years. Id. at ¶¶ 1–2. Ms. Hanson
noted that as an instructor, she “pay[s] close attention to the physical limitations and impairments
of every one of her clients.” Id. at ¶ 1.
11

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 12 of 26
Ms. Hanson recalled that on or about November 2019, she noticed that Petitioner “was
holding her right arm stiffly by her side, which was unlike her.” Id. at ¶ 3. Upon questioning,
Petitioner advised Ms. Hanson that “she recently received a flu shot in her right shoulder and she
had been having worsening pain ever since.” Id. The following day, during a weight-lifting water
fitness class, Ms. Hanson recalled that Petitioner could not lift a 1.8 lb. weight with her right arm
and that her arm was very flushed and hot to the touch. Id. at ¶ 4. Ms. Hanson noted that she
advised Petitioner to avoid lifting any weight with her right arm until she saw a doctor. Id. Ms.
Hanson added that since that time, Petitioner has missed water fitness classes. Id. at 5. The COVID-
19 pandemic closed the in-person water fitness classes shortly thereafter. Id.
d. Declaration of Mario Wiggins
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration by Mario Wiggins, which was executed on
May 10, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 14 at 1, ECF No. 25-4. Mr. Wiggins stated that he is an online exercise
coach and has worked with Petitioner since 2017. Id. at ¶¶ 1–2. He recalled that on or about
November 7, 2019, Petitioner informed him of pain in her right shoulder that began “as soreness
after she received a flu shot about one week prior, and that it never got better and instead had been
getting worse ever since.” Id. at ¶ 3. Mr. Wiggins added that he noticed Petitioner had a
significantly decreased range of motion in her right shoulder. Id. Mr. Wiggins further stated that
Petitioner “had right shoulder pain ever since,” including “limited range of motion” and
“noticeable dysfunction and limitations in her right shoulder.” Id. Mr. Wiggins noted that
Petitioner “has not been able to do regular exercises ever since.” Id. at ¶ 4.
e. Declaration of Judy Hetzel
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration by Judy Hetzel, which was executed on
May 11, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 15 at 1, ECF No. 25-5. Ms. Hetzel stated that she is a long-time friend
of Petitioner and sees her at least two times per month, in addition to seeing each other a few times
a month in water aerobics class. Id. at ¶ 1. Ms. Hetzel recalled that on or about November 2019
before Thanksgiving, during a water aerobics class, Petitioner informed her “that she had pain in
her right shoulder since receiving a flu shot a few weeks prior” and that the “pain was getting
worse.” Id. at ¶ 2. Ms. Hetzel noticed that Petitioner’s “right shoulder function has been impaired
since that time.” Id.
Ms. Hetzel noted that prior to this vaccination, Petitioner “was always very active” and she
“always participated fully in all water aerobics classes.” Id. at ¶ 3. Ms. Hetzel added that since the
injury, Petitioner has not been able to use her right arm. Id. Ms. Hetzel stated that “[t]o this day,
[Petitioner] still has discomfort in her right arm and she still has limited range of motion in her
right shoulder.” Id. at ¶ 4.
f. Declaration of Jearldine White
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration by Jearldine White, which was executed
on May 12, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 16 at 2, ECF No. 25-6. Ms. White stated that she is a long-time, close
friend of Petitioner and they talk on the phone almost every day. Id. at ¶ 1. Ms. White recalled that
prior to October 30, 2019, Petitioner “never complained to me about pain in her right shoulder”
12

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 13 of 26
and that “she was generally in good health and had no issues with her right shoulder.” Id. at ¶ 2.
Ms. White recalled speaking with Petitioner on the phone on October 29, 2019, when Petitioner
stated that she was going to get her flu vaccination the following day. Id. The next day, Ms. White
recalled speaking to Petitioner on the phone, when Petitioner stated that she got her vaccination at
Walmart Pharmacy in her right shoulder and “that she felt more sore than usual.” Id. at ¶ 3. Ms.
White further recalled Petitioner stating that “her muscle jumped” and that the administering
pharmacist advised that “the pain might last a few days but will eventually go away on its own.”
Id.
Ms. White recalled that Petitioner’s pain continued to worsen and that she returned to the
pharmacy multiple times, where the pharmacist advised “that the pain would eventually go away
on its own, but that it can take up to four to six weeks to get better.” Id. at ¶ 4. Ms. White noted
that Petitioner’s pain continued to worsen, and she decided to see a doctor. Id.
Ms. White added that Petitioner has undergone two surgeries on her right shoulder and that
the physical therapy following the first surgery “made her pain worse.” Id. at ¶ 5. Ms. White noted
that Petitioner often called her crying after her physical therapy sessions “because she was in so
much pain” and that she developed frozen shoulder and her “shoulder locked up” which required
a second surgery. Id. Ms. White stated that Petitioner “still has limited range of motion in her right
shoulder” and while “her pain seems more manageable now, she is still not the same after this
injury.” Id. at ¶ 6.
g. Declaration of Abraham Scott
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration by Abraham Scott, which was executed on
May 11, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 17 at 2, ECF No. 25-7. Mr. Scott stated that he has lived with and been
married to Petitioner for approximately 30 years. Id. at ¶ 1. Mr. Scott recalled that Petitioner woke
up on October 31, 2019, the day after her vaccination, complaining that “she could hardly move
or raise her right arm” and that “her muscle jumped when she was given the vaccine.” Id. at ¶ 3.
Over the next few days, Mr. Scott observed Petitioner’s pain worsening to the point where “she
had no movement in her right shoulder and arm” and she “held her arm close to her body and was
afraid to move it because of the pain.” Id. at ¶ 4.
Mr. Scott added that Petitioner “has been through a lot because of this injury to her
dominant right arm” including two surgeries and extensive physical therapy. Id. at ¶ 5. For a while,
Petitioner “had no movement in her arm,” and she could not assist with household chores. Id. Mr.
Scott noted that to date, May 11, 2022, Petitioner continued to have pain in her right shoulder and
could not “lift items of weight or reach overhead or across her body with her right arm.” Id.
Additionally, Petitioner could not drive long distances and struggled to sleep. Id. at ¶ 6. Mr. Scott
concluded that Petitioner “has learned to adapt and live with her shoulder limitations.” Id.
h. Expert Review
i. Expert Backgrounds
1. Petitioner’s Expert, Marko Bodor, M.D.
13

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 14 of 26
Dr. Bodor received his medical degree from the University of Cincinnati Medical School
in 1987. Pet’r’s Ex. 20 at 1, ECF No. 32-8. Dr. Bodor then completed an internship in surgery at
the University of California, San Diego in 1988. Id. Next, Dr. Bodor completed residency in
physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Michigan in 1993. Id.
Dr. Bodor is board-certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation, sports medicine, and
pain medicine. Pet’r’s Ex. 19 at 1, ECF No. 32-2. Dr. Bodor was “the first to describe vaccination-
related shoulder dysfunction and its disease mechanism” in the Journal of Vaccine. Id. Since 2007,
Dr. Bodor has “treated or consulted on approximately 50 patients with [vaccine-related shoulder
dysfunction], 30 of which [were] in the last 5 years.” Id.
Since 1995, Dr. Bodor has been in private practice as an interventional physiatrist. Pet’r’s
Ex. 20 at 1. Dr. Bodor also serves as Medical Director of the Synergy Medical Fitness/Wellness
Center, Queen of the Valley Medical Center, and Napa Medical Research Foundation. Id. at 2.
2. Respondent’s Expert, Geoffrey Abrams, M.D.
Dr. Abrams received his medical degree from the University of California, San Diego in
2007. Resp’t’s Ex. B at 1, ECF No. 35-12. Dr. Abrams then completed a surgical internship in
2008 and residency in orthopedic surgery in 2012 at Stanford University Hospital and Clinics. Id.
Dr. Abrams also completed a fellowship in orthopedic sports medicine at Rush University Medical
Center. Id.
Dr. Abrams is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with a subspeciality certification in
sports medicine. Resp’t’s Ex. A at 1, ECF No. 35-1. Dr. Abrams currently serves as an Assistant
Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, the Director of Sports Medicine for Varsity Athletics, and
Director of the Lacob Family Sports Medicine Center at Stanford University. Id. Dr. Abrams also
serves as “Team Physician for numerous professional and collegiate sports teams in the San
Francisco Bay Area.” Id.
Additionally, Dr. Abrams has a “surgical practice focused on orthopedic conditions of the
shoulder” and has “published extensively on the shoulder and other musculoskeletal pathology,
with over 120 total peer-reviewed publications.” Id.
ii. Expert Reports
1. Dr. Bodor’s Expert Report
Petitioner filed Dr. Bodor’s expert report on September 23, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 19. Dr. Bodor
presented his medical theory and opined that Petitioner’s shoulder pain:
[S]tems from a chain reaction which started with a flu vaccination that likely
penetrated through the deltoid muscles and into her rotator cuff and shoulder
capsule, triggering an immune-mediated attack on these structures, essentially a
14

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 15 of 26
focal autoimmune response, consisting of progressively increasing inflammation
and eventually adhesive capsulitis.
Id. at 5. Dr. Bodor further explained that Petitioner’s arthroscopic surgery “appeared to have
resolved much of her pain, by possibly ‘washing out’ vaccine from where it was deposited in the
cuff and capsule[.]” Id. Dr. Bodor continued that, over time, Petitioner
“experienced a recurrence of scarring and adhesions, possibly on the basis of familial genetic
predisposition, requiring a second operation which did not completely resolve her pain and
functional deficits.” Id.
Dr. Bodor also analyzed the medical records and timeline for Petitioner’s injury. Dr. Bodor
stated that his analysis of the medical record “indicate[d] that [Petitioner] did suffer from both
right shoulder and neck pain from the outset and time of her flu vaccination.” Id. at 4. Dr. Bodor
addressed a contradiction in a medical record from Dr. Momah on November 20, 2019, where the
review of systems stated, “negative for back pain, neck pain, and neck stiffness” while the narrative
record itself stated “neck pain and spasm post-flu shot[.]” Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 117–18). Dr.
Bodor opined that this failure to include the neck pain and stiffness in the review of systems was
an oversight by Dr. Momah and does not change his opinion that Petitioner’s onset of pain was
immediately after the vaccination, which satisfies the temporal requirement in this matter. Id. at 4.
Dr. Bodor also noted that “pain in neck” along the trapezius “is frequently experienced in
conjunction with shoulder problems” because of “trapezius muscle overuse secondary to increased
rotation of the scapula to compensate for reduced movement at the glenohumeral joint because of
pain or injury [at that] joint.” Id.
Dr. Bodor next disputed Dr. Momah’s radiculopathy diagnosis given to Petitioner on
December 19, 2019. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 129). Dr. Bodor noted that Dr. Momah is a general
primary care provider, not a specialist, and that Petitioner was never diagnosed with radiculopathy
by any of her subsequent musculoskeletal specialists, including her physical therapist and
orthopedic surgeon. Id. Dr. Bodor also cited Petitioner’s symptoms, stating that her lack of
“complaints of numbness or tingling down the arm to the fingers” does not support a radiculopathy
diagnosis. Id. Additionally, if Petitioner solely suffered from radiculopathy, it would not explain
her limited passive range of motion in her right shoulder. Id. at 4–5. Dr. Bodor opined that the
above evidence supports a shoulder injury, rather than a radiculopathy. Id.
Dr. Bodor also pointed to Petitioner’s “markedly reduced passive shoulder range of
motion” by December 27, 2019, which indicated that “adhesive capsulitis had set in.” Id. at 5
(citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 145). Dr. Bodor defined adhesive capsulitis as “white cell infiltration into
the capsule of the joint, which is similar to what has been noted histologically in cases of
vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction at time of surgery.” Id. Dr. Bodor elaborated that
“[v]accine inadvertently injected into the rotator cuff or shoulder capsule result[ed] in an immune-
mediated inflammatory reaction” and cited a recent paper by Hirsiger et al.,28 which described
“unique auto-antibodies in patients with vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction . . . [which were]
not present in controls who received the same vaccinations and did not have these problems.” Id.
(citing Pet’r’s Ex. 19, Tab 5, ECF No. 32-7).
28 Julia R. Hirsiger et al., Chronic Inflammation and Extracellular Matrix-Specific Autoimmunity
Following Inadvertent Periarticular Influenza Vaccination, 124 J. AUTOIMMUNITY 102714 (2021).
15

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 16 of 26
2. Dr. Abrams’ Expert Report
Respondent filed Dr. Abrams’ expert report on January 19, 2023. Resp’t’s Ex. A. Dr.
Abrams opined that Petitioner’s “symptoms are not consistent with SIRVA” because she did not
experience “frozen shoulder symptoms of pain and stiffness” immediately after the vaccination.
Id. at 4. Dr. Abrams pointed to Petitioner’s two primary care visits within a month and a half post
vaccination to support this contention. Id. Dr. Abrams stated that Petitioner failed to report “direct
shoulder area pain[,]” instead complaining of “neck pain and spasm which limit[ed] her
movement” during her visit on November 20, 2019. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 117). Dr. Abrams
also noted that Petitioner received a shingles vaccination during this visit. Id. Dr. Abrams further
referred to Petitioner’s primary care visit on December 10, 2019, where there is documentation of
“right arm pain” but a “normal range of motion of the shoulder” upon physical examination. Id.
(citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 124).
Dr. Abrams then explained SIRVA generally. Id. Dr. Abrams wrote that “SIRVA involves
an inflammatory reaction with the shoulder from injected antigenic material within the vaccine,
with the most common manifestations of SIRVA being frozen shoulder.” Id. Dr. Abrams continued
that if SIRVA had been related to Petitioner’s shoulder pain, there would have been “decreased
motion of the shoulder shortly after the vaccination – and certainly before the . . . visit on December
10, 2019[,] in which Petitioner’s range of motion was documented to be ‘normal.’” Id. (citing
Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 124). Dr. Abrams added that while “automated errors and omissions in the medical
record are always possible,” it is likely that a shoulder examination for shoulder pain would be
documented correctly. Id. at 4–5.
Next, Dr. Abrams proposed two explanations for Petitioner’s shoulder pain: (1) de novo
adhesive capsulitis, or frozen shoulder, or (2) rotator cuff and other structural abnormalities. Id. at
5. Dr. Abrams stated that “adhesive capsulitis that arises outside of any SIRVA event[] is one of
the most common causes of shoulder pain in middle-aged females.” Id. Dr. Abrams added that
Petitioner “has ‘very high’ levels of LDL and total cholesterol [], and this is associated with an
increased risk of frozen shoulder.” Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 122). Further, the “key to
determination [of] whether frozen shoulder is associated with SIRVA is the proximity of the
shoulder pain and stiffness to the vaccination” which Petitioner lacks in this case. Id. Regarding
the second explanation, Dr. Abrams pointed to Petitioner’s MRI from January 2020 as supportive
evidence of a rotator cuff tear and “other structural abnormalities.” Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 160).
Dr. Abrams added that the structural abnormalities could not be caused by the vaccination because
there was no “edema[29] in the rotator cuff (or adjacent bone) nor significant bursitis from an
inflammatory response that would indicate injections of the vaccine into the subacromial space or
adjacent tissues.” Id.
29 Edema is “the presence of abnormally large amounts of fluid in the intercellular tissue spaces of the
body, usually referring to subcutaneous tissues. It may be localized (as from venous obstruction,
lymphatic obstruction, or increased vascular permeability) or systemic (as from heart failure or renal
disease).” Edema, Dorland’s Med. Dictionary Online, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/
definition?id=15589 (last visited Sept. 16, 2024).
16

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 17 of 26
Lastly, Dr. Abrams addressed Dr. Bodor’s discussion of the Gorski and Schwartz30 article
and proposal of “the phenomenon of how neck pain may be caused by shoulder pathology . . . to
explain [Petitioner’s] initial neck area symptoms[.]” Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 19, Tab 3, ECF No. 32-
5). Dr. Abrams disputed this conclusion, stating that the “patients in the Gorski [and Schwartz]
study included patients with pain in the ‘superior-medial border of the scapula’ which is actually
part of the back (not the neck itself)[,]” had a significantly younger average age than Petitioner,
and did not have “documented cervical spine pathology[.]” Id. For these reasons, Dr. Abrams
asserted that the Gorski and Schwartz literature does not support Petitioner’s claim that the
vaccination was responsible for her musculoskeletal complaints. Id.
Dr. Abrams concluded with a summary of his opinion:
The onset of shoulder range of motion deficits at nearly two months after the
vaccination in question make SIRVA an unlikely diagnosis in this particular case.
In addition, frozen shoulder not related to SIRVA as well as the underlying
structural abnormalities of [] [P]etitioner’s shoulder provide more likely
explanations for her symptoms.
Id. at 6.
3. Dr. Bodor’s Supplemental Expert Report
Petitioner submitted a supplemental expert report from Dr. Bodor on February 22, 2023.
Pet’r’s Ex. 21, ECF No. 36-2. Dr. Bodor opined that:
[T]he sequence of events and process leading to adhesive capsulitis related to
SIRVA might start immediately following a vaccination, it has been [his]
experience that it does not fully manifest, with marked reductions of active and
passive range of motion, until 3 to 6 weeks later.
Id. at 1. Dr. Bodor added that the above opinion is based upon his experience “with over 50 cases
for the [Program] and 25 seen in [his] practice in the last 15 years.” Id. In Petitioner’s case, “her
shoulder range of motion was, at the latest, reduced by 12/19/19, which would have been 39 days
(5 weeks and 4 days) after her vaccination” which is “well within the window of adhesive capsulitis
related to SIRVA).” Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 130–31).
Dr. Bodor next addressed Petitioner’s high cholesterol, noting that “it may have been a
contributing factor” but the timing and onset of symptoms is “consistent with the vaccination being
the primary trigger and cause of [Petitioner’s] adhesive capsulitis.” Id. Additionally, Dr. Bodor
noted that Petitioner’s onset within 48 hours of vaccination is supported by five witness affidavits.
Id. (citing Pet’r’s Exs. 13–17).
Dr. Bodor further discussed Petitioner’s neck pain. Id. Dr. Bodor stated that Dr. Momah’s
description of Petitioner’s neck pain is consistent with a shoulder problem, as described by Gorski
30 Jerrold M. Gorski & Lawrence H. Schwartz, Shoulder Impingement Presenting as Neck Pain, 4 J.
BONE & JOINT SURGERY 635 (2003).
17

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 18 of 26
and Schwartz. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 19, Tab 3). Dr. Bodor opined that while “pain described along
the border of the medial scapula is actually in the upper back or thoracic spine[,]” lay people and
Dr. Gorski describe this pain as part of the “neck.” Id. Dr. Bodor continued that this fact makes it
just as likely that Petitioner and Dr. Momah described the symptoms as “neck pain” while it was
actually stemming from Petitioner’s shoulder. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 117). Dr. Bodor also
pointed to subsequent reports that Petitioner suffered from shoulder pain and loss of range of
motion. Id.
Finally, Dr. Bodor addressed Petitioner’s radiographs, which Dr. Abrams stated showed
evidence of cervical spine degenerative disc disease. Id. at 2 (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 139). Dr. Bodor
opined that while Petitioner’s pain could have been caused by her neck, cervical spine degenerative
disc disease did not account for Petitioner’s loss of passive range of shoulder motion, which is
“specific to either adhesive capsulitis or osteoarthritis[.]” Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 147–49). Dr.
Bodor continued that Petitioner could not have osteoarthritis because of the MRI results. Id. (citing
Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 160).
Dr. Bodor concluded his report with a summary of his opinion:
[Petitioner’s] ongoing shoulder pain stems from a sequence of events which started
with a flu vaccination and led to adhesive capsulitis. Her arthroscopic surgery
initially helped, but then over time she experienced a recurrence of scarring and
adhesions, requiring a second operation which did not completely resolve her pain
and functional deficits.
Id.
III. Ruling on the Record
a. Petitioner’s Motion
In Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record, filed on May 17, 2022, Petitioner argued
that she is entitled to compensation. Pet’r’s Mot. at 1. Petitioner asserted that the October 30, 2019
flu vaccine was a substantial factor in causing her injury and was a but-for cause of her injury. Id.
at 19. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that her injury qualifies as a successful Table SIRVA claim
and/or a causation-in-fact shoulder injury claim. Id.
Petitioner first addressed her Table SIRVA claim. Id. at 13. Petitioner stated that she had
no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in her right shoulder prior to vaccination. Id. at
13–14 (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 5–114, 129). Next, Petitioner argued that her medical records and
affidavit testimonies prove that her symptoms occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. at 14–
17 (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 117–18, 124, 129–30, 145; Pet’r’s Ex. 16 at ¶ 3; Pet’r’s Ex. 17 at ¶ 3;
Pet’r’s Ex. 14 at ¶ 3; Pet’r’s Ex. 15 at ¶ 2). Petitioner then stated that all of her reports of pain and
symptoms were isolated to her right shoulder, as evidenced by the medical records. Id. at 17 (citing
Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 130, 172). Finally, Petitioner argued that no other condition or abnormality would
explain her right shoulder symptoms. Id. at 17–18.
18

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 19 of 26
Next, Petitioner addressed her causation-in-fact shoulder injury claim. Id. at 18. Petitioner
asserted that the inclusion of SIRVA on the Table sufficiently establishes her burden under Althen
prong one. Id. Next, Petitioner argued that the preponderant evidence satisfying the Qualifications
and Aids in Interpretation (“QAI”) criterion under Table SIRVA is sufficient to prove a logical
sequence of cause and effect under Althen prong two. Id. at 18–19. Finally, Petitioner stated that
the record establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her right shoulder symptoms
occurred immediately after the administration of the vaccine to sufficiently meet Althen prong
three. Id. at 19.
Petitioner also included a discussion of damages, which is omitted as it is not relevant to
this stage of Petitioner’s claim. Id. at 20–24.
b. Respondent’s Response
On July 7, 2022, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report which also served as Respondent’s
response to Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record. Resp’t’s Report at 1. Respondent
recommended against compensation for Petitioner’s alleged injury. Id.
Respondent averred that Petitioner failed to meet her burden to establish a Table SIRVA
claim for three reasons: (1) Petitioner did not establish by preponderant evidence that her right
shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination; (2) Petitioner’s pain was not limited to her
right shoulder; and (3) Petitioner has a history of neuropathic pain, cervical radiculopathy, and
degenerative disc disease which all reflect alternative causes to explain Petitioner’s symptoms. Id.
at 8–9.
Respondent further argued that Petitioner failed to meet her burden to establish a causation-
in-fact SIRVA claim because Petitioner has not established that she suffered a specific shoulder
injury and lacked an expert report to articulate a medical theory in support of this claim. Id. at 9–
10.
c. Petitioner’s Reply
In Petitioner’s reply, filed on July 13, 2022, Petitioner articulated four arguments in support
of entitlement for her injury. Pet’r’s Reply at 1–8. First, Petitioner responded to Respondent’s
critique that the medical records regarding onset were “vague[.]” Id. at 1. Petitioner averred that
the medical records prove that Petitioner consistently reported pain since the vaccination and that
numerous witness affidavits corroborate the immediate onset of symptoms. Id. at 1–2 (citing
Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 117, 124, 129, 145; Pet’r’s Ex. 14 at ¶ 3; Pet’r’s Ex. 15 at ¶ 2; Pet’r’s Ex. 16 at ¶
3; Pet’r’s Ex. 17 at ¶ 3).
Second, Petitioner stated that all reported pain was limited to her right shoulder, including
symptoms of neck pain which were caused by her right shoulder injury. Id. at 4. Petitioner added
that she was never diagnosed or treated for any cervical conditions. Id. at 5.
Third, Petitioner reiterated that she did not suffer from any other condition or abnormality
that would explain her right shoulder symptoms. Id. at 5–6. Specifically, Petitioner responded to
19

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 20 of 26
Respondent’s contention that the initial neuropathic pain and cervical radiculopathy diagnoses on
December 19, 2019 can explain Petitioner’s symptoms. Id. Instead, Petitioner argued that her
complaints during that visit were solely musculoskeletal in nature and did not include neuropathic
symptoms such as numbness or tingling. Id. at 6. Petitioner’s subsequent visits and diagnosis
reiterate that her injury was musculoskeletal in nature, ruling out alternate conditions or
abnormalities to explain her right shoulder symptoms. Id. at 6–7.
Fourth, Petitioner reiterated that she has presented sufficient preponderant evidence to
support a finding that her right shoulder injury was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine at issue. Id.
at 7. Petitioner argued that she has met all of the Althen prongs as required. Id. at 7–8.
IV. Applicable Legal Standard
The Vaccine Act provides petitioners with two avenues to receive compensation for their
injuries resulting from vaccines or their administration. First, a petitioner may demonstrate that
she suffered a “Table” injury-i.e., an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table that occurred within
the provided time period. § 11(c)(1)(C)(i). “In such a case, causation is presumed.” Capizzano v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006); § 13(a)(1)(B).
The Vaccine Injury Table lists a SIRVA as a compensable injury if it occurs within 48
hours of administration of a vaccination. § 14(a) as amended by 42 CFR § 100.3. Table injury
cases are guided by statutory QAIs, which provide more detailed explanation of what should be
considered when determining whether a petitioner has actually suffered an injury listed on the
Vaccine Injury Table. See 42 CFR § 100.3(c). To be considered a “Table SIRVA,” a petitioner
must show that her injury fits within the following definition:
SIRVA manifests as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the upper
arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended injection of
vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the underlying bursa of
the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction. SIRVA is caused by an injury
to the musculoskeletal structures of the shoulder (e.g., tendons, ligaments, bursae,
etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological injury and abnormalities on neurological
examination or nerve conduction studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG)
studies would not support SIRVA as a diagnosis . . .. A vaccine recipient shall be
considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior
to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs,
symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine
injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;[31]
31 Pain onset within 48 hours in a necessary condition for SIRVA injuries. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii).
20

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 21 of 26
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the
intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the patient's
symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy, brachial neuritis,
mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 CFR §100.3(c)(10).
Alternatively, if a petitioner is unable to establish a Table claim, she may bring an “off-
Table” claim. § 11(c)(1)(C)(ii). An “off-Table,” or causation-in-fact, claim requires that a
petitioner “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccine at issue caused the injury.”
Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1320; see § 13(a)(1)(A); see § 11(c)(1)(C)(ii)(II). A petitioner must show
that the vaccine was “not only a but-for cause of the injury but also a substantial factor in bringing
about the injury.” Moberly ex rel. Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322
n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1352–53
(Fed. Cir. 1999)); Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citations omitted).
In the seminal case of Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., the Federal Circuit set forth
a three-pronged test to determine whether a petitioner has established a causal link between a
vaccine and the claimed injury. See 418 F.3d at 1278–79. The Althen test requires petitioners to
set forth: “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a
showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Id. at 1278. To
establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, a petitioner is required to establish each
of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. See id.
Under the first prong of Althen, a petitioner must offer a scientific or medical theory that
answers in the affirmative the question: “can the vaccine[] at issue cause the type of injury
alleged?” See Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 01-0165V, 2004 WL 1717359, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 16, 2004), mot. for rev. denied, 64 Fed. Cl. 19 (2005), aff’d, 451 F.3d
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To satisfy this prong, a petitioner’s theory must be based on a “sound and
reliable medical or scientific explanation.” Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 F.3d
543, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Such a theory must only be “legally probable, not medically or
scientifically certain.” Id. at 548–49. Petitioners are not required to identify “specific biological
mechanisms” to establish causation, nor are they required to present “epidemiologic studies,
rechallenge[] the presence of pathological markers or genetic disposition, or general acceptance in
the scientific or medical communities.” Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Althen, 418 F.3d at
1280). Scientific and “objective confirmation” of the medical theory with additional medical
documentation is also unnecessary. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278–81; Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322.
However, as the Federal Circuit has made clear, “simply identifying a ‘plausible’ theory of
causation is insufficient for a petitioner to meet her burden of proof.” LaLonde v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 746 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322). Rather,
“[a] petitioner must provide a reputable medical or scientific explanation that pertains specifically
to the petitioner’s case.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322. In general, “the statutory standard of
21

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 22 of 26
preponderance of the evidence requires a petitioner to demonstrate that the vaccine more likely
than not caused the condition alleged.” LaLonde, 746 F.3d at 1339.
Furthermore, establishing a sound and reliable medical theory connecting the vaccine to
the injury often requires a petitioner to present expert testimony in support of her claim. Lampe v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 219 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Supreme Court’s
opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), requires that
courts determine the reliability of an expert opinion before it may be considered as evidence. “In
short, the requirement that an expert’s testimony pertain to ‘scientific knowledge’ establishes a
standard of evidentiary reliability.” Id. at 590 (citation omitted). Thus, for Vaccine Act claims, a
“special master is entitled to require some indicia of reliability to support the assertion of the expert
witness.” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1324. The Daubert factors are used in the weighing of the reliability
of scientific evidence proffered. Davis v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 94 Fed. Cl. 53, 66–67
(2010) (“[U]niquely in this Circuit, the Daubert factors have been employed also as an acceptable
evidentiary-gauging tool with respect to persuasiveness of expert testimony already admitted.”).
Nothing requires the acceptance of an expert’s conclusion “connected to existing data only by the
ipse dixit of the expert,” especially if “there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data
and the opinion proffered.” Snyder v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 88 Fed. Cl. 706, 743 (2009)
(quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997)).
Under the second prong of Althen, a petitioner must prove that the vaccine actually did
cause the alleged injury in a particular case. See 418 F.3d at 1279. The second Althen prong
requires proof of a logical sequence of cause and effect, usually supported by facts derived from a
petitioner’s medical records. Id. at 1278; Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326; Grant v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A petitioner does not meet this obligation by
showing only a temporal association between the vaccination and the injury; instead, the petitioner
“must explain how and why the injury occurred.” Pafford, 2004 WL 1717359, at *4 (emphasis in
original). The special master in Pafford noted petitioners “must prove [ ] both that [the]
vaccinations were a substantial factor in causing the illness . . . and that the harm would not have
occurred in the absence of the vaccination.” Id. (citing Shyface, 165 F.3d at 1352). A reputable
medical or scientific explanation must support this logical sequence of cause and effect. Hodges
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Nevertheless,
“[r]equiring epidemiologic studies . . . or general acceptance in the scientific or medical
communities . . . impermissibly raises a claimant’s burden under the Vaccine Act and hinders the
system created by Congress . . ..” Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1325-26. “[C]lose calls regarding
causation are resolved in favor of injured claimants.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280.
In Program cases, contemporaneous medical records and the opinions of treating
physicians are favored. Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326 (citing Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280). Indeed,
when reviewing the record, a special master must consider the opinions of treating physicians. Id.
This is because “treating physicians are likely to be in the best position to determine whether ‘a
logical sequence of cause and effect show[s] that the vaccination was the reason for the injury.’”
Id. (quoting Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280). In addition, “[m]edical 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
22

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 23 of 26
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While a special master must consider these opinions and records,
they are not “binding on the special master or court.” § 13(b)(1). Rather, when “evaluating the
weight to be afforded to any such . . . [evidence], the special master . . . shall consider the entire
record . . . .” Id.
To satisfy the third Althen prong, a petitioner must establish a “proximate temporal
relationship” between the vaccination and the alleged injury. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1281. This
“requires preponderant proof that the onset of symptoms occurred within a timeframe for which,
given the medical understanding of the disorder’s etiology, it is medically acceptable to infer
causation-in-fact.” de Bazan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2008). Typically, “a petitioner’s failure to satisfy the proximate temporal relationship prong is due
to the fact that onset was too late after the administration of a vaccine for the vaccine to be the
cause.” Id. However, “cases in which onset is too soon” also fail this prong; “in either case, the
temporal relationship is not such that it is medically acceptable to conclude that the vaccination
and the injury are causally linked.” Id.; see also Locane v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 685
F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[If] the illness was present before the vaccine was administered,
logically, the vaccine could not have caused the illness.”).
Although a temporal association alone is insufficient to establish causation, under the third
prong of Althen, a petitioner must show that the timing of the injury fits with the causal theory.
See Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. The special master cannot infer causation from temporal proximity
alone. See Thibaudeau v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 400, 403-04 (1991); see also
Grant, 956 F.2d at 1148 (“[T]he inoculation is not the cause of every event that occurs within the
ten[-]day period . . . [w]ithout more, this proximate temporal relationship will not support a finding
of causation.” (quoting Hasler v. United States, 718 F.2d 202, 205 (6th Cir. 1983))).
Once a petitioner has established her prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Respondent
to prove, also by preponderant evidence, that the alleged injury was caused by a factor unrelated
to vaccination. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278 (citations omitted); § 13(a)(1)(B). The Vaccine Act
requires Respondent to establish that the factor unrelated to the vaccination is the more likely or
principal cause of the injury alleged. Deribeaux v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 717 F.3d 1363,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Such a showing establishes that the factor unrelated, not the vaccination,
was “principally responsible” for the injury. See § 13(a)(2)(B). The factor unrelated must be the
“sole substantial factor[;]” therefore, Respondent must establish that the factor unrelated, not the
vaccination, actually caused the injury alleged. See de Bazan, 539 F.3d at 1354.
V. Analysis
As a preliminary matter, the parties in this case disagree on the nature of Petitioner’s injury,
even as they both identify adhesive capsulitis as the likely diagnosis. Petitioner presented to her
primary care physician on November 20, 2019, twenty-one days post vaccination, with complaints
of neck pain and spasms. Petitioner’s symptoms continued to evolve, and during an examination
conducted on December 10, 2019, she complained of decreased mobility, sharp pain, and right
shoulder tenderness. Petitioner contended that she suffers from a SIRVA: a medical condition
listed on the Program’s Vaccine Injury Table that is further defined by legal factors known as
23

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 24 of 26
QAIs. Respondent’s expert, Dr. Abrams, argued that although Petitioner’s symptoms may suggest
SIRVA, her presentation does not satisfy the QAI criteria because of reported neck pain.
Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Bodor, explained how Petitioner’s complaint of neck pain is
consistent with SIRVA. He persuasively argued that given the location of the trapezius muscle,
pain in this area is often associated with the neck and is “frequently experienced in conjunction
with shoulder problems” due to “overuse secondary to increased rotation of the scapula to
compensate for reduced movement at the glenohumeral joint.” Pet’r’s Ex. 19 at 5. However, this
complaint of neck pain is inconsistent with the third Table criterion that pain and reduced range of
motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered.
Additionally, a Table claim is often precluded in cases where another condition or
abnormality is present that would explain the symptoms, e.g., clinical evidence of radiculopathy
or any other neuropathy. Dr. Bodor acknowledged that radiculopathy was listed as a potential
diagnosis for Petitioner. Indeed, neuropathy was considered as a potential differential diagnosis
early on, but Dr. Bodor addressed Petitioner’s possible radiculopathy diagnosis by noting that
Petitioner lacked any numbness or tingling symptoms consistent with a neuropathy. Additionally,
she was never diagnosed with a neuropathy by a specialist. Moreover, Dr. Abrams did not assert
that Petitioner suffered from a neuropathy.
Dr. Abrams also did not suggest there was another cause of Petitioner’s shoulder pain, but
he argued that her injury is unrelated to vaccination. He asserted that “adhesive capsulitis that
arises outside of any SIRVA event is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain in middle-
aged females.” Resp’t’s Ex. A at 5. However, this is insufficient to establish that there is another
condition or abnormality to explain Petitioner’s symptoms. “[T]he proposed rulemaking defining
SIRVA specifically includes adhesive capsulitis as a condition falling within the scope of SIRVA.”
O’Leary v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-584V, 2021 WL 3046617, at *11 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 24, 2021) (citing Proposed Rulemaking, 2015 WL 4538923, at *45136). In this
case, Dr. Bodor and Dr. Abrams both opined that Petitioner could have developed adhesive
capsulitis. The medical records and the opinions of both parties’ experts amount to preponderant
evidence that Petitioner suffered from adhesive capsulitis.
In summary, while the medical record reveals that there was ultimately no evidence of
neuropathy,32 Petitioner’s characterization of her injury to include neck pain is not limited to her
shoulder and therefore does not satisfy the third Table criterion. Because a petitioner is only
considered to have suffered a Table SIRVA injury if all of the criteria are met, Petitioner’s Table
claim must fail. See 42 C.F.R § 100.3(c)(10).
While a Table SIRVA claim is one basis for entitlement, it is also a very limited condition
with strict parameters to facilitate easy identification and settlement. Non-Table shoulder injuries
can also be the basis for a successful claim in the Program, but the petitioner must prove causation
where it would otherwise be presumed. Non-Table shoulder injuries often include symptoms that
overlap with those seen in a Table SIRVA, including adhesive capsulitis.
32 There is also no evidence of a prior condition and I find pain onset is within 48 hours, as discussed
more below. Therefore, Petitioner satisfies the first, second, and fourth Table criteria.
24

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 25 of 26
Although Petitioner is unable to prevail on a Table claim, she can still succeed on her
alternative theory that she suffered a shoulder injury caused-in-fact by her vaccination. Petitioner
alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury that is commonly seen in the Program, adhesive
capsulitis. However, for Petitioner’s non-Table claim, she must still provide a sound and reliable
medical theory of causation and a logical sequence of cause and effect in her case.
I find that Petitioner presented a scientific or medical theory that explains how an
improperly administered flu vaccine can cause a shoulder injury that initiates a localized immune
response and develops into soreness, stiffness, and ultimately frozen shoulder or adhesive
capsulitis. Dr. Bodor described Petitioner’s clinical presentation as a chain reaction that started as
a “focal autoimmune response, consisting of progressively increasing inflammation and eventually
adhesive capsulitis.” Pet’r’s Ex. 16 at 2. He referenced Petitioner’s complaints to treaters and her
statements filed in this case as evidence of a localized immune response. Dr. Abrams argued
Petitioner’s symptoms manifested too late following her vaccination, and that she did not have
edema or other evidence of an inflammatory response to indicate that the vaccine needle was
inappropriately placed in Petitioner’s arm.
While it is true Petitioner did not seek medical care in the days immediately following her
vaccination, she consistently reported that the pain began following her flu shot. Petitioner
described how she attempted to self-treat her pain, even as it worsened, and she exhibited evidence
of limited range of motion upon later examination. Petitioner provided statements from several
witnesses, including her spouse, coaches, and friends, corroborating her statement that pain
immediately followed her vaccination and limited her range of motion. Petitioner has presented
preponderant evidence that her shoulder pain manifested immediately after vaccination. She
detailed her efforts at self-care and then sought treatment as her pain worsened and she needed
physical therapy and surgery. Petitioner’s medical records note that she was prescribed topical
cream to treat localized pain, stiffness, and spasms post-vaccination. Dr. Abrams’ assertion that
Petitioner’s pain onset is untimely with respect to her vaccination because she did not immediately
see a medical professional is not sufficient to overcome the other evidence.
Dr. Bodor also referred to Petitioner’s description of the pain in her arm at the time of
vaccination to argue the pain was immediate and beyond the scope of a common vaccination
reaction. I find that Petitioner has presented preponderant evident that her injury occurred
immediately following her vaccination, consistent with an injury suffered as a result of improper
administration. Dr. Bodor continued with the medical record account of Petitioner’s gradual
development of frozen shoulder and the discovery of a rotator cuff tear, requiring multiple rounds
of physical therapy and surgeries. Dr. Bodor argued that this clinical progression is analogous to
what you would see in a SIRVA case in terms of onset, severity, and duration. I find this line of
reasoning persuasive. Dr. Abrams did not dispute the nature and progression of Petitioner’s injury.
He did not persuasively argue that her presentation was inconsistent with a vaccine-caused
shoulder injury.
Therefore, I find that Petitioner has presented a scientific or medical theory, satisfying the
first Althen prong. See Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278. Petitioner’s medical records contain preponderant
evidence that following her vaccination, she experienced symptoms consistent with her theory,
thus, satisfying the second Althen prong. Id. Lastly, Petitioner’s statements provide preponderant
25

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 45 Filed 10/22/24 Page 26 of 26
evidence that the onset of her right shoulder pain occurred on October 30, 2019, within 48 hours
of vaccination. The timing of onset shows a proximate temporal relationship that is appropriate
given the mechanism of injury. Thus, Petitioner has satisfied the third Althen prong. Id.
VI. Conclusion
After careful review of the record, Petitioner has established by preponderant evidence that
she suffered from a shoulder injury in her right shoulder that was caused-in-fact by her October
20, 2019 flu vaccination. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to compensation. This case shall
proceed to damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
26

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01982-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-03-31
Pages: 16
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/5/26) regarding 51 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (kis) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 16
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: March 5, 2026
Refiled: March 25, 2026
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHIRLEY SCOTT, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 20-1982V
*
v. * Special Master Young
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Irene Angelica Firippis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 28, 2020, Shirley Scott (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program” or “Program”). 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-10 to 34 (2018). Petitioner alleged that she suffered from “a right [s]houlder
[i]njury [r]elated to [v]accine [a]dministration (“SIRVA”), . . . resulting from adverse effects of an
influenza [(“flu”)] vaccine [she] received on October 30, 2019.” Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. I resolved
Petitioner’s claim on the record and issued a Ruling on Entitlement on September 25, 2024. ECF
No. 42. The case proceeded to damages, but the parties were unable to make progress on an amount
for pain and suffering or out-of-pocket expenses.2 For the reasons discussed below, and after
considering the entire record and argument from the parties, I find that Petitioner is entitled to
$2,323.33 in out-of-pocket expenses and a total pain and suffering award of $195,000.00.
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 Following a status conference held on October 17, 2024, I ordered Respondent to only brief the issue of
pain and suffering because he expressed a disinterest in considering evidence related to out-of-pocket
expenses. See ECF No. 46. Despite this Order, Respondent’s brief regarding damages included a section
addressing out-of-pocket expenses which directly acknowledged that I had ordered him not to do so.
Resp’t’s Br. at 11, ECF No. 47. Accordingly, I will not consider Respondent’s arguments on this matter
and only address those related to pain and suffering.
1

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 16
I. Relevant Procedural History
Due to Petitioner’s SIRVA allegation, Petitioner’s case was originally assigned to the Chief
Special Master and the special processing unit (“SPU”). ECF No. 4. Petitioner filed a motion for
a ruling on the record and a brief in support of damages on May 17, 2022. Pet’r’s Br., ECF No.
26. Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report arguing against compensation on July 7, 2022. Resp’t’s
Report, ECF No. 27. Petitioner filed a reply on July 13, 2022. ECF No. 28. This case was
reassigned to me on July 15, 2022. ECF No. 30. I stayed Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the
record until after the filing of expert reports. ECF No. 31.
Petitioner filed her first expert report from Marko Bodor, M.D., along with supporting
medical literature, on September 23, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 19, Tabs 1–5, Pet’r’s Ex. 20, ECF No. 32.
Respondent filed his first expert report from Geoffrey D. Abrams, M.D., along with supporting
medical literature on January 19, 2023. Resp’t’s Ex. A, Tabs 1–10, Resp’t’s Ex. B, ECF No. 35.
Petitioner filed a supplemental report from Dr. Bodor on February 22, 2023. Pet’r’s Ex. 21, ECF
No. 36. On March 30, 2023, I held a status conference to discuss whether additional argument was
needed to resolve Petitioner’s Table claim. Min. Entry, docketed Mar. 30, 2023. Following the
status conference, on April 13, 2023, Respondent submitted a status report indicating that he did
not believe further argument was warranted. ECF No. 38.
I resolved Petitioner’s claim on the record and issued a Ruling on Entitlement on
September 25, 2024. ECF No 42. The case has been in the damages phase since then. ECF No.
43. On October 17, 2024, I held a status conference to discuss the issue of damages. Min. Entry,
docketed Oct. 17, 2024. I noted that Respondent had refused to identify areas of common ground
or to engage in any attempts to settle damages. ECF No. 46. I also noted that Respondent had
expressed a disinterest in considering any evidence related to Petitioner’s out-of-pocket expenses.
Id. Accordingly, I ordered Respondent to submit briefing on pain and suffering only by no later
than November 8, 2024. Id. Respondent filed his brief addressing both pain and suffering and
out-of-pocket expenses on November 8, 2024. Resp’t’s Br., ECF No. 47. Petitioner filed a reply
and an affidavit from Petitioner on January 8, 2025. Pet’r’s Ex. 23, ECF No. 49; Pet’r’s Reply,
ECF No. 50. This matter is now ripe for adjudication on the issue of damages.
II. Medical History
A. Vaccination
On October 30, 2019, Petitioner received an intramuscular flu vaccination in her right arm
at Walmart Pharmacy in Flowood, Mississippi. Pet’r’s Ex. 2 at 3–4.
B. Post -Vaccination Medical History
On November 20, 2019, 21 days after vaccination, Petitioner saw her primary care
physician (“PCP”), Dr. Tobe Momah, for an annual physical. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 117–18. Petitioner
reported “neck pain and spasm” after her flu vaccination, which limited her movement during
2

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 16
exercise. Id. Dr. Momah prescribed diclofenac sodium 1% gel3 for topical treatment of Petitioner’s
neck muscle spasm. Id. at 120.
On December 10, 2019, 41 days after vaccination, Petitioner returned to her PCP and saw
Dr. Ardarian Pierre with complaints of “right arm pain since receiving flu shot.” Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at
124. Petitioner reported that the symptoms began “[four-to-five] weeks ago” and she found “some
relief” with ice. Id. A physical examination showed a normal range of motion of Petitioner’s right
shoulder. Id. Dr. Pierre prescribed 750mg of Robaxin and 800mg of Ibuprofen and advised
Petitioner to avoid exercise and weightlifting with her right arm until the symptoms resolved. Id.
at 125.
On December 19, 2019, Petitioner returned to Dr. Momah with complaints of new onset
“sharp pain in the right shoulder” after her flu vaccination. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 129. Petitioner reported
“decreased mobility, sharp pain and increased tenderness in the right shoulder.” Id. Petitioner
graded her pain as “10/10, worsening and sharp.” Id. Petitioner noted that “she was in normal
health” until the flu vaccination. Id. Petitioner further reported that the over-the-counter
medications, prescriptions, and ice did not resolve her pain. Id. A physical examination showed
decreased range of motion in Petitioner’s right shoulder and neck pain and stiffness. Id. at 130. Dr.
Momah diagnosed Petitioner with neuropathic pain of the right shoulder, acromioclavicular joint
osteoarthritis, shoulder impingement, and cervical radiculopathy. Id. at 131–32. Dr. Momah
prescribed Petitioner 75mg of Lyrica4 and 50mg of Ultram5 and ordered x-rays of the right
shoulder and cervical spine. Id. at 133–34. Petitioner was also referred to physical therapy. Id. The
cervical spine x-ray revealed “chronic degenerative disc changes [] most pronounced at C4-4, C5-
6.” Id. at 139. The right shoulder x-ray revealed “mild osteoarthritis” of the acromioclavicular6
and glenohumeral joints.7 Id. at 142.
On December 27, 2019, Petitioner began physical therapy at the University of Mississippi
Medical Center (“UMMC”) for right shoulder pain with Stacey Lee, DPT. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 145.
During her initial evaluation, Petitioner reported pain since her flu shot had worsened since onset.
Id. Petitioner also noted that she “never had neck or shoulder issues prior to this onset.” Id.
3 Diclofenac sodium 1% gel “is used to treat pain and other symptoms of arthritis of the joints . . . such as
inflammation, swelling, stiffness, and joint pain.” Mayo Clinic (July 26, 2024, 2:01pm),
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/diclofenac-topical-application-route/side-effects/drg-
20063434?p=1.
4 Lyrica is a “trademark for a preparation of pregabalin.” Lyrica, DORLAND’S MED. DICTIONARY ONLINE,
https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=29107 (hereinafter, “DORLAND’S”). Pregabalin is
“a derivative of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) having anticonvulsant and antinociceptive effects, used in
the treatment of neuropathic pain in diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia; administered orally.”
Pregabalin, DORLAND’S.
5 Ultram is a “trademark for a preparation of tramadol hydrochloride.” Ultram, DORLAND’S. Tramadol
hydrochloride is “an opioid analgesic used for the treatment of moderate to moderately severe pain
following surgical procedures and oral surgery; administered orally.” Tramadol Hydrochloride,
DORLAND’S.
6 The acromioclavicular joint is “the synovial joint between the acromion of the scapula and the acromial
extremity of the clavicle.” Articulatio Acromioclavicularis, DORLAND’S.
7 The glenohumeral joint is “the joint formed by the head of the humerus and the glenoid fossa of the
scapula.” Glenohumeral Joint, DORLAND’S.
3

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 16
Petitioner rated her current pain at 6.5/10. Id. A physical examination revealed range of motion
restrictions with flexion at 85 degrees, abduction at 58 degrees, and external rotation at 20 degrees
with mild to moderate strength deficits. Id. at 147–48. By January 3, 2020, Petitioner had
completed three sessions of physical therapy. Id. at 161. At this session, Petitioner indicated that
she desired to stop physical therapy until her orthopedic follow-up to discuss her magnetic
resonance imaging (“MRI”) results. Id. at 162. Petitioner’s reported pain was 2/10, and she was
advised to continue with pain-free activities. Id.
On January 2, 2020, Petitioner underwent an MRI. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 160. The impression
was “[h]igh-grade near full-thickness articular surface tear involving the majority of the
supraspinatus tendon with tendinosis[8][,] [t]ear of the superior labrum [(SLAP)] [, and] [m]oderate
AC joint osteoarthritis.” Id.
On January 22, 2020, Petitioner returned to UMMC to see orthopedic surgeon Dr. William
Geissler reporting right shoulder pain since her flu shot. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 172. Petitioner noted that
the pain was constant and “radiate[d] down to her elbow.” Id. Petitioner also reported that the pain
prevented her from sleeping. Id. Because of the pain, Petitioner could not “raise her arm in front
of her and [could not] raise it behind” and “[felt] weak with overhead activities and some
numbness.” Id. A physical examination revealed flexion at 45 degrees, abduction of 45 degrees,
and external rotation of 60 degrees Id. Dr. Geissler’s impression was right torn rotator cuff9 and
SLAP lesion. Id. Petitioner noted that physical therapy did not provide relief and requested surgery.
Id.
Petitioner underwent arthroscopic debridement of the labrum and biceps tendon release of
the right shoulder by Dr. Geissler on February 18, 2020. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 800. Petitioner saw Dr.
Geissler for a two-week post-operative visit on March 9, 2020. Id. at 220. A shoulder x-ray
revealed a rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression without complication. Id. at 217.
Petitioner began post-operative physical therapy at UMMC on March 23, 2020. Id. at 223.
Petitioner attended 55 sessions, through September 9, 2020. Id. at 561.
On July 13, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Geissler for a five-month post-operative visit. Pet’r’s
Ex. 4 at 360. Petitioner complained of a “frozen shoulder” with “pain about the shoulder that
radiate[d] up about the base of the neck area, supraclavicular area” and “decreased motion.” Id. A
physical examination revealed range of motion restrictions with a flexion of 90 degrees and
abduction of 90 degrees with mild strength deficits. Id. Dr. Geissler diagnosed Petitioner with
adhesive capsulitis10 and administered a Depo-Medrol injection in her right shoulder. Id. Dr.
Geissler further advised Petitioner to continue physical therapy. Id. Petitioner returned for a seven-
8 Tendinosis or tendinitis is the “inflammation of tendons and of tendon-muscle attachments.” Tendinitis,
DORLAND’S.
9 The rotator cuff is “a musculotendinous structure about the capsule of the shoulder joint, formed by the
inserting fibers of the supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres minor, and subscapularis muscles, blending with
the capsule and providing mobility and strength to the shoulder joint.” Rotator Cuff, DORLAND’S.
10 Adhesive capsulitis is “adhesive inflammation between the joint capsule and the peripheral articular
cartilage of the shoulder with obliteration of the subdeltoid bursa, characterized by shoulder pain of
gradual onset, with increasing pain, stiffness, and limitation of motion.” Adhesive Capsulitis,
DORLAND’S.
4

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 5 of 16
month post-operative follow-up appointment on September 14, 2020. Id. at 576. Dr. Geissler found
Petitioner made “absolutely no improvement” since her last visit and advised to proceed with a
procedure. Id. at 577.
On September 22, 2020, Petitioner underwent an arthroscopic manipulation and
debridement of adhesions and right shoulder decompression by Dr. Geissler. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 801–
02. During the procedure, Dr. Geissler noted that Petitioner’s “shoulder was quite stiff. We could
not manipulate it.” Id. at 667. The procedure included “a total capsule release from the 3 o’clock
position to the 9 o’clock position.” Id. Petitioner began physical therapy at Elite Physical Therapy
for post-operative rehabilitation on September 28, 2020. Pet’r’s Ex. 5 at 131.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler for a post-operative visit on September 30, 2020. Pet’r’s
Ex. 4 at 667. Petitioner was encouraged to use her shoulder as much as possible and to continue
with physical therapy. Id. at 667–68.
On November 18, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Momah for concerns of high blood pressure
and weight gain. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 741. Petitioner noted that she was “unable to fully flex her right
upper extremity.” Id. Petitioner was encouraged to use Voltaren gel, to go to physical therapy, and
to follow up with her orthopedic surgeon. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler for a post-operative visit on December 2, 2020. Pet’r’s
Ex. 4 at 767. Dr. Geissler noted that Petitioner “still need[ed] some additional therapy in motion,
but she ha[d] improved significantly to what she was preoperatively.” Id. Petitioner reported that
she was “quite pleased and want[ed] to continue therapy” and no longer required pain medication.
Id. A physical examination revealed active flexion of 120, abduction of 120, external rotation of
60, and strength 4/5. Id.
On February 2, 2021, Petitioner had her last visit for post-operative physical therapy.
Pet’r’s Ex. 8 at 7. Petitioner had a total of 49 visits. Id. Petitioner rated her pain at 2/10, met three
of her goals, and partially met the remaining three goals. Id. at 7–8. Petitioner’s progress plateaued
and she was advised to continue exercises at home. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler for a post-operative visit on February 3, 2021. Pet’r’s
Ex. 9 at 14. Petitioner reported improvement with her physical therapy but requested additional
pain medication. Id. A physical examination revealed flexion of 140 degrees, abduction of 140
degrees, external rotation of 60 degrees, and mild strength deficits. Id. Dr. Geissler prescribed
Petitioner 50mg of Tramadol and encouraged her to do home exercises. Id. at 14, 18.
On September 15, 2021, Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler for a one-year post-operative
visit. Pet’r’s Ex. 9 at 32. Petitioner reported “some ache to her shoulder” and “a little bit of
stiffness.” Id. A physical examination revealed flexion at 140, abduction at 140, external rotation
to 70, and strength at 4/5. Id. Dr. Geissler administered a 40mg injection of Depo-Medrol and
advised Petitioner to return to physical therapy. Id.
Petitioner began an additional round of physical therapy at Elite Physical Therapy on
September 20, 2021. Pet’r’s Ex. 10 at 55. At her evaluation, Petitioner reported that she recently
5

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 6 of 16
“had more pain and difficulty lifting arm overhead and behind back.” Id. Petitioner reported pain
of 5/10 with a flexion and abduction of 130. Id. at 55–56. By November 4, 2021, Petitioner
completed 15 physical therapy sessions. Id. at 10. Petitioner’s pain was 1/10 with active flexion
of 165 and abduction of 160. Id. Petitioner had full strength. Id. at 10–11. Petitioner had met her
long-term goals. Id. at 13.
On April 4, 2022, Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler with complaints that her shoulder was
“getting a little tight.” Pet’r’s Ex. 22 at 9. A physical examination revealed active flexion of 160,
abduction of 140, and strength 4/5. Id. Dr. Geissler advised that Petitioner did not require further
physical therapy because she had “good functional motion.” Id. Petitioner was advised to continue
at-home strengthening program. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler on March 6, 2024, for an evaluation after her shoulder
“suddenly locked up” two weeks ago. Pet’r’s Ex. 22 at 144. Petitioner reported that she had a
stomach infection a few months ago and currently used a boot on her right foot. Id. at 144–45. A
physical examination revealed active flexion of 140, abduction of 120, external rotation of 70, and
strength at 4/5. Id. at 145. Dr. Geissler injected 4mg of Depo-Medrol into Petitioner’s right
shoulder and advised her to return in four months. Id. Dr. Geissler noted that Petitioner may require
more than one injection and if “she [did] not improve, she may be a candidate for arthroscopic
debridement of the calcium deposit.” Id.
No additional medical records were filed.
III. Statements11
A. Petitioner’s Initial Declaration
In her initial December 30, 2020 declaration, Petitioner described “immediate pain at the
injection site” upon administration of the vaccine. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at ¶ 5. She stated that her pain
“worsened over the next several days” and she suffered from limited range of motion and
“increased pain with certain movements.” Id. Heat, ice, and over-the-counter pain medication was
not sufficient to manage the pain. Id. Petitioner described her appointments with both Dr. Momah
and Dr. Pierre and stated that their remedies of ice, Ibuprofen, and Flexeril were not working. Id.
at ¶¶ 6–8. She saw Dr. Geissler for an MRI, which revealed “a rotator cuff tear around the same
area where the flu shot was administered.” Id. at ¶ 11. She underwent surgery for this on February
18, 2020, and “was instructed to wear a sling until [her] first post-op[erative] follow-up.” Id. at ¶
12.
After her sling was removed, she began physical therapy and completed 18 sessions
between March and May of 2020, in addition to prescribed home exercises twice a day. Pet’r’s Ex.
3 at ¶ 14. Despite this, Petitioner stated that her “shoulder was still very painful.” Id. She then
completed another 25 sessions of physical therapy at the instruction of Dr. Geissler, where she
stated that she “had excruciating pain after each session,” and that she had “never had anything
hurt [her] so bad in [her] life. Every time the therapist would move [her] shoulder [she] would
holler in pain.” Id. at ¶¶ 15–16. Petitioner described it as “a terrible feeling of pain” and stated that
11 Only the portions relevant to damages are discussed herein.
6

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 7 of 16
she “would often cry on [her] way back home from therapy.” Id. at ¶ 16. She continued to ice her
shoulder at night, and her pain gave her difficulty sleeping, as “[t]he only way [she] was able to
sleep [was] when [she] was propped up in bed.” Id. She also stated that her therapist described her
condition as frozen shoulder. Id. She relayed this to Dr. Geissler, and “told him about the severe
pain” she was having, and he ordered her a steroid injection and an additional six weeks of physical
therapy. Id. at ¶ 17.
Petitioner completed another 11 sessions of physical therapy between July and September
2020, and she “did not notice any improvement” in her range of motion and she continued to have
pain. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at ¶ 18. She also stated that she went on vacation “but was unable to enjoy any
recreational activities, such as tennis or jet skiing, because of [her] right shoulder pain and
dysfunction.” Id. Petitioner also claimed to have turned down “a principal position at the
Mississippi Department of Correctional Center in Pearl[,] Mississippi . . . because of [her] shoulder
injury and [her] need for extensive physical therapy and another surgery.” Id. at ¶ 20. At her
September 14, 2020 follow-up with Dr. Geissler, Petitioner stated that “immediately” upon trying
to move her arm, Dr. Geissler stated she had frozen shoulder and would require surgery, which
Petitioner received on September 22, 2020. Id. at ¶¶ 21–22. She started post-operative physical
therapy on September 28, 2020, and claimed that although she “ha[d] been doing better with
therapy, [she] still ha[d] weakness [and] limited range of motion in [her] right shoulder.” Id. at ¶
23. She stated that Dr. Geissler advised her to “use [her] shoulder as much as possible.” Id. at ¶
24. He prescribed her six more weeks of physical therapy on December 2, 2020, and stated he
would prescribe additional physical therapy if Petitioner did not have “satisfactory range of motion
after those six weeks.” Id. at ¶ 26.
Petitioner claimed that at the time of her declaration she continued to “have pain,
limitations and dysfunction in [her] right shoulder.” Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at ¶ 27. She noted that while her
symptoms had “improved,” she still experienced weakness, tightness, pain, and limited range of
motion, which she “manage[d] with oxycodone when it [got] bad.” Id. She also asserted that she
developed high blood pressure “which [she] believe[d] is related to [her] shoulder injury.” Id. She
has “difficulty with activities of daily living involving the use of [her] dominant right arm” and
that that she was “still unable to enjoy recreational activities because of [her] right shoulder pain
and dysfunction.” Id. Petitioner feels that she “will never be able to do the things [she] was able to
do prior to the vaccination.” Id.
B. Petitioner’s Supplemental Declaration
Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration on May 17, 2022. Pet’r’s Ex. 12. She stated that
she “was hopeful that the pain would eventually subside on its own, but it just kept getting worse”
after vaccination. Id. at ¶ 3. She claimed to have “returned to the pharmacy and spoke with the
administering pharmacist several times over the next few weeks” to inform him that the pain had
not gone away. Id. She explained that she “was guarding [her] shoulder” and holding her right arm
to her body to avoid the pain, which made her “right arm . . . appear shorter than [her] left, and
[she] began to have pain from [her] right shoulder into the right side of [her] neck.” Id.
In total, Petitioner claimed to have attended 121 sessions of physical therapy in addition to
her two surgeries following the injury to her right shoulder. Pet’r’s Ex. 12 at ¶ 7. She explained
7

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 8 of 16
that her therapist had advised her to “do exercises at home and at the gym because by February
2021 [she] had already used up half of the number of sessions covered by Medicare.” Id. at ¶ 9.
She claimed this is why she did not attend physical therapy between February and September of
2021, and instead purchased a YMCA membership for water therapy and shoulder strengthening
exercises. Id. She returned to physical therapy from September to November 2021, and was “given
a lot of exercises to do at home and at the gym.” Id. at ¶ 10. She claimed that she had incurred
“significant YMCA membership dues” that she would not have otherwise incurred but for her
shoulder injury. Id.
Petitioner stated that she continues to have “severe pain” in her right shoulder and that if
she drives long distances her “shoulder gets stiff and painful.” Pet’r’s Ex. 12 at ¶ 11. She claims
that she “will never be able to do simple things” she previously could do, such as washing her back
by herself. Id. She also stated that she no longer has restful nights of sleep “because of [her]
shoulder pain and having to toss and turn all night just to get some sleep.” Id.
C. Petitioner’s Supplemental Affidavit
On January 8, 2025, Petitioner filed a supplemental affidavit. Pet’r’s Ex. 23. She reported
that since she received the flu shot, she has “experienced severe pain, limited range of motion,
and significant dysfunction” that has “drastically impacted” her daily life. Id. at ¶ 2. Between
November 2019 and April 2022, she completed 121 physical therapy sessions, underwent two
surgeries, and received two steroid injections. Id. at ¶ 3. Following her first surgery in February
2020, she purchased a train ticket for her sister to travel from Chicago to assist with household
chores. Id. at ¶ 4. She maintained a YMCA membership from 2020 to 2022 for shoulder exercises.
Id. at ¶ 5. From 2022 to 2024 she experienced “constant pain” rated at a 5/10 and “limited mobility
in [her] dominant right shoulder.” Id. at ¶ 6. She stated it was impossible to wash her back or
drive long distances due to the pain. Id. She also stated that in early 2024, her “shoulder
unexpectedly locked up, intensifying [her] pain and weakness.” Id. at ¶ 7. She returned to her
orthopedist because of this and was given a third steroid injection. Id. She claimed that she
continues to suffer pain and limitations from her shoulder injury and that she “must rely on [her]
husband for everyday tasks [she] once managed independently.” Id. at ¶ 8.
D. Declaration of Anne Hanson
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration from her water fitness instructor, Anne
Hanson. Pet’r’s Ex. 13. She stated that Petitioner had been coming to her class “for years” and did
not have any physical limitations prior to her shoulder injury. Id. at ¶ 2. In early November 2019
Ms. Hanson noticed Petitioner “holding her right arm stiffly by her side, which was unlike her.”
Id. at ¶ 3. Petitioner reportedly attributed the pain to her flu vaccine and stated that “she had been
having worsening pain ever since.” Id. The following day, Petitioner was unable to lift a 1.8lb
weight with her right arm. Id. at ¶ 4. Following that day, Ms. Hanson reported that Petitioner began
to miss her water fitness classes. Id. at ¶ 5.
8

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 9 of 16
E. Declaration of Mario Wiggins
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration from her online exercise coach, Mario
Wiggins. Pet’r’s Ex. 14. Mr. Wiggins claimed that he had been Petitioner’s online exercise coach
since 2017, and that in November 2019 she informed him of pain in her right shoulder following
a flu shot. Id. at ¶¶ 2–3. He noticed significantly decreased range of motion, which he stated has
persisted with “noticeable dysfunction and limitations” prevented her from doing “regular
exercises ever since.” Id. at ¶¶ 3–4.
F. Declaration of Judy Hetzel
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration from her friend, Judy Hetzel. Pet’r’s Ex.
15. Ms. Hetzel stated that she sees Petitioner at least twice a month in addition to the water aerobics
classes they take together. Id. at ¶ 1. Ms. Hetzel claimed that in November 2019 she saw Petitioner
in her water aerobics class and that Petitioner told her she had worsening right shoulder pain
following a flu vaccination. Id. at ¶ 2. She reported that Petitioner still appears to suffer from
discomfort and limited range of motion in her right arm and that she is unable to use her right arm
in water aerobics classes. Id. at ¶¶ 3–4.
G. Declaration of Jearldine White
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration from her friend Jearldine White. Pet’r’s
Ex. 16. She reported that she spoke on the phone with Petitioner nearly every day, including the
day before and the day of her flu vaccination. Id. at ¶¶ 1–2. She reported that following her first
surgery, physical therapy put her in so much pain that she would call her crying. Id. at ¶ 5. Ms.
White reported that “although her pain seems more manageable now, she is still not the same after
this injury.” Id. at ¶ 6.
H. Declaration of Abraham Scott
On May 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a declaration from her husband, Abraham Scott. Pet’r’s
Ex. 17. He reported that the morning following her flu shot, Petitioner could “hardly move or raise
her right arm” and that her pain continued to get worse over the next few days. Id. at ¶¶ 3–4. He
further reported that Petitioner was unable to do household chores for a period of time such as
washing dishes, making her bed, and mopping. Id. at ¶ 5. As of the filing of his declaration, Mr.
Scott reported that Petitioner still “[could not] lift items of weight or reach overhead or across her
body with her right arm.” Id. at ¶ 6. “She [could] no longer drive long distances, and she still
tosse[d] and turn[ed] at night because of the pain in her shoulder.” Id.
IV. Arguments Regarding Damages
A. Petitioner’s Argument
In Petitioner’s motion for damages, she requested $2,323.33 to cover past unreimbursed
expenses (out-of-pocket expenses). Pet’r’s Br. at 1. This included expenses related to medical
bills, the cost of her flu vaccination, physical therapy sessions, YMCA dues, and a round-trip
9

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 10 of 16
Amtrak ticket for her sister to travel to care for her following her surgery. See id. at 24. Petitioner
also requested an award for past pain and suffering in the amount of $225,000.00.12 Id. at 1.
Petitioner focused on several factors for consideration, including her two shoulder surgeries, 121
physical therapy sessions, three steroid injections, pain years after vaccination, and the impact on
her quality of life. Id. at 22; Pet’r’s Reply at 3. She also cited to other Program cases to
demonstrate similarities between her case and those cases that were awarded an amount similar
to what she seeks here. Pet’r’s Br. at 23; Pet’r’s Reply at 3–4.
For example, Petitioner compared the facts of her case to M.W. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., and argued that the cases are similar, as both Petitioner and the petitioner in M.W. had two
surgeries as a result of their SIRVA injury. No. 18-0267, 2021 WL 3618177 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 17, 2021). There, M.W. had undergone 71 physical therapy sessions, three MRIs, and two
shoulder surgeries. Id. at *3. M.W. also reported constant pain, difficulty sleeping, and
experienced an impaired ability to perform her job as a schoolteacher. Id. The special master
awarded M.W. $195,000.00 for her past pain and suffering. Id. at *1.
Schoonover v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs. was another surgical SIRVA case where
the petitioner was awarded $200,000.00 in past pain and suffering. No. 16-1324V, 2020 WL
5351341 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 5, 2020). There, the petitioner experienced a severe SIRVA,
with a 40% permanent partial disability to her left shoulder and was managing her pain with
prescribed narcotics, with her pain ranging from a three to a nine on a scale of ten. Id. at *4. The
Chief Special Master also noted that at the time, “this [was] the only SIRVA case in the Program
where a petitioner underwent two shoulder surgeries on top of multiple steroid injections and
numerous physical therapy sessions.” Id. at *5.
In Meindorf v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., another case cited by Petitioner, the
petitioner was awarded $200,000.00 following three years of pain, including two surgeries,
multiple rounds of physical therapy, three steroid injections, two MRI scans, and five laser
treatments. No. 19-1876V, 2022 WL 1055475, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 7, 2022). The
special master here relied on the petitioner’s continuous pursuit of medical treatment following
her surgery and that the petitioner continued to suffer from decreased functional strength
following her discharge from physical therapy, as well as the fact that the petitioner was a 36-
year-old mother of two whose injury impacted her ability to engage with her family. Id. at * 2–3.
Petitioner also cited to McDorman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., a SIRVA case
involving two surgical procedures, ten steroid injections, an MRI, and multiple rounds of physical
therapy. No. 19-814V, 2021 WL 5504698 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2021). There, the special
master awarded the petitioner $200,000.00 in past pain and suffering. Id. at *2. The special master
noted that the petitioner had shown signs of improvement within two years of her vaccination,
although this followed her surgeries and other treatment. Id. at *3. The petitioner rated her
shoulder functionality as an 8/10 and her overall pain as a 2/10 two years following vaccination.
Id. However, her doctor noted that she had reached “maximum medical improvement,” and had
subsequently developed right shoulder pain related to overuse stemming from the recovery of her
left shoulder. Id. The petitioner’s daily life was also affected, impairing her ability to care for her
son with autism spectrum disorder and forcing her to sell her sailboat due to her inability to
12 Petitioner did not request an award of future pain and suffering.
10

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 11 of 16
engage in sailing. Id. at *4.
In her reply to Respondent, Petitioner cited to three more SIRVA cases to demonstrate
comparability between damages awards. Petitioner argued that the first, Joyce v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., was the “most comparable to this case, but [Petitioner’s] injury is more severe,
involving significant functional limitations in her dominant arm, longer duration of symptoms,
and over three times as many physical limitations.” Pet’r’s Reply at 3 (citing No. 20-1882V, 2023
WL 6811015 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 12, 2023)).
Next, Petitioner cited to Elmakky v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.¸ where the petitioner
was awarded $205,000.00 for past pain and suffering. No. 17-2032V, 2021 WL 6285619 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 3, 2021). There, the petitioner underwent three surgeries and ultimately
recovered from what the Chief Special Master described as a “severe” SIRVA. Id. at *5–6.
Petitioner argued that her award should exceed that of the petitioner in Elmakky because her
“treatment has been more intensive, and her recovery remains incomplete.” Pet’r’s Reply at 3.
Finally, Petitioner cited to Lawson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., where the petitioner
was awarded $205,000.00 for past pain and suffering. No. 18-882V, 2021 WL 688560 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Jan. 5, 2021). There, the petitioner underwent four years of treatment for her injury,
including three surgeries, which did not fully resolve her pain. Id. at *4. In that case the Chief
Special Master analogized the petitioner in Lawson to the petitioner in Schoonover, finding that
both underwent “lengthy and significant medical and surgical care and treatment and suffered
episodes of severe pain and limited mobility.” Id. at *5 (citing Schoonover, 2020 WL 535134 at
*4). The special master in Lawson thus justified the award of $5,000.00 greater than that in
Schoonover due to the petitioner’s “unprecedented three surgeries, seven steroid injections, four
rounds of [physical therapy], six MRIs, and most recently started PRP injections.” Id. However,
the petitioner’s pain was also intermittent, with some instances of relief, and the special master
noted that it was “ambiguous” as to whether the petitioner’s third surgery was actually related to
her SIRVA. Id. at *6. Here, Petitioner argued that her “prolonged pain and functional restrictions,
coupled with her dominant arm being affected, exceed the hardships in Lawson.” Pet’r’s Reply
at 3–4.
B. Respondent’s Argument
Although Respondent was explicitly directed not to brief the issue of out-of-pocket
expenses, Respondent contested the $2,323.33 in out-of-pocket expenses requested by Petitioner.
Resp’t’s Br. at 11. As mentioned above, I directed Respondent not to brief this issue due to his
own unwillingness to consider evidence timely presented by Petitioner, and I am not considering
Respondent’s arguments to this point. I will assess the nature and persuasiveness of the evidence
presented by Petitioner in support of her requested amount and render a reasoned decision aligned
with the facts and consistent with prior cases in the Program.
Regarding Petitioner’s pain and suffering, Respondent argued that Petitioner’s requested
award of $225,000.00 is excessive, and instead proposed Petitioner receive $120,000.00. Resp’t’s
Br. at 9. Respondent noted that Petitioner “experienced approximately two years of shoulder
discomfort following vaccination” and that her last physical therapy appointment was on
11

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 12 of 16
November 4, 2021. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 2 at 3–4; Pet’r’s Ex. 10 at 10–13). Respondent noted
that at this appointment, Petitioner reported “minimal pain, full strength, and met her long-term
therapy goals.” Id. Respondent also argued that Petitioner is retired, and thus the injury did not
affect her occupation. Id. Respondent argued that Petitioner “made a full recovery” and that she
no longer required physical therapy due to her “good functional motion.” Id. (citing Scott v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1982V, 2024 WL 4544335, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept.
25, 2024).
Respondent also argued that Petitioner’s case illustrations were not analogous to her case
because she “failed to elaborate on their context or fact pattern and if those cases are even
analogous to the case at issue.” Resp’t’s Br. at 9–10. He noted that the petitioner in M.W. had
four years of sequelae; that the petitioner in Schoonover was a mother, practicing respiratory
therapist, and suffered a permanent disability; that Meirndorf involved three years of sequelae
and laser treatments; and that McDorman found no surgical relief and received 10 total injections
in her shoulder. Id. at 10 (citing M.W., 2021 WL 3618177; Schoonover, 2020 WL 5351341;
Meirndorf, 2022 WL 1055475; McDorman, 2021 WL 5504698). Respondent concluded that
Petitioner’s SIRVA was “moderately severe” and required only “conservative treatment” aside
from her two surgeries. Id. Respondent also argued that Petitioner “fully recovered,” and thus
should be awarded “a lower pain and suffering award than other SRIVA cases in which a
petitioner’s injury involved treatment with two arthroscopic procedures.” Id.
V. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act may include an award “[f]or actual
and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, . . . not
to exceed $250,000.” § 15(a)(4). There is no precise 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) (“Awards 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) (“[T]he 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)).
A special master may also look to prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the resolution
of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in each 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, a special master may rely on his or her own experience adjudicating similar claims.
Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated that special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine
injuries to judge the merits of individual claims). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed
12

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 13 of 16
that pain and suffering is not determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
In Graves, Judge Merrow rejected the special master’s approach of awarding
compensation for pain and suffering based on a spectrum from $0.00 to the statutory $250,000.00
cap, criticizing this as constituting “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.” Graves, 109 Fed. Cl. at 590. Instead, he found that pain and suffering
should be assessed 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, applying
the statutory cap only thereafter. Id. at 595.
VI. Prior SIRVA Compensation
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As of
January 1, 2026, 5,397 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of the SPU ten years
before. Compensation has been awarded in the vast majority of cases (5,194), with the remaining
203 cases dismissed. Although this case was ultimately removed from the SPU, consideration of
the SPU compensated cases can provide some insight on an appropriate damages award.
Of the 5,194 compensated cases, 2,946 SPU SIRVA cases were the result of a reasoned
ruling that the petitioner was entitled to compensation (as opposed to an informal settlement or
concession). In only 351 of these cases was the amount of damages determined by a special master
in a reasoned decision. 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. See, e.g., Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (discussing
the difference between cases in which damages are agreed upon by the parties and cases in which
damages are determined by a special master).
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 351 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 $35,000.00 to
$215,000.00, with $85,000.00 as the median amount. 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 petitioner’s
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. 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
mild to moderate SIRVAs usually resolved after one to two cortisone injections and two months
or less of physical therapy. None required surgery. Except in one case involving very mild pain
13

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 14 of 16
levels, the duration of the SIRVA injury ranged from six to thirty 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 thirty days of vaccination. All petitioners with
significant pain also 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 physical therapy sessions—occasionally spanning
several years—and multiple cortisone injections, were required in these cases.
VII. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
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 her awareness of her
injury. Therefore, I will address the remaining factors to be considered when determining an award
for pain and suffering: the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury.
A review of her medical records reveals preponderant evidence that from the date of
vaccination on October 30, 2019, until her first surgery on February 18, 2020, Petitioner initially
suffered from a moderate SIRVA. While Petitioner did not immediately seek medical attention
after the alleged onset of her SIRVA, she did report pain associated with her flu vaccination at her
PCP appointment three weeks later on November 20, 2019. She returned again, after another three
weeks on December 10, 2019, with an onset of four-to-five weeks and no range of motion
limitations. She began to describe her pain as “sharp” on December 19, 2019, about two months
following vaccination, and her physical examination then revealed a reduced range of motion. See
Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 129. Petitioner began physical therapy, and after three sessions her pain had
reduced to a 2/10 on January 3, 2020. However, approximately three weeks later on January 22,
2020, Petitioner reported worsening pain, numbness, and extreme range of motion deficits, and
was instructed to begin physical therapy. She reported that physical therapy did not provide relief
and requested surgery, which was performed approximately one month later on February 18, 2020.
Following her surgery, Petitioner’s condition progressed to a more severe case of SIRVA.
She began physical therapy on March 23, 2020, but in July 2020 Petitioner experienced a sudden
onset of frozen shoulder, resulting in the administration of her first steroid injection. Petitioner
would continue to attend physical therapy until September 9, 2020, for a total of 55 sessions.
However, at her September 14, 2020 follow-up with Dr. Geissler, he noted that there had been no
improvement since her July 2020 steroid injection, and he recommended a second arthroscopic
surgery. During her procedure, Dr. Geissler noted that Petitioner’s shoulder was so stiff he “could
not manipulate it.” Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 667. Petitioner then began her third round of physical therapy
on September 28, 2020.
Following her second surgery, Petitioner was advised to use her shoulder as much as
possible and was noted to have significant improvement at a December 2, 2020 follow-up
14

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 15 of 16
appointment. Petitioner also reported she no longer required pain medication. Petitioner’s final
physical therapy appointment was on February 2, 2021, and she rated her pain as a 2/10, met three
of her goals, and partially met the remaining three goals. Several months later, on September 15,
2021, Petitioner returned for her one-year post-operative visit and reported aching and stiffness in
her shoulder. She received her second steroid injection and returned to physical therapy. Her rated
pain was a 5/10 and she had slightly reduced range of motion in her shoulder. By November 4,
2021, her pain had reduced to a 1/10 following 15 physical therapy sessions and she had returned
to full strength. Petitioner complained of tightness in April 2022, but her surgeon advised against
further physical therapy because she continued to show good functional motion. No further reports
were made until March 6, 2024, when Petitioner returned to Dr. Geissler with complaints of her
shoulder locking up two weeks prior. She received her third steroid injection and was considered
a possible candidate for another arthroscopic surgery if her symptoms did not improve.
To support the amount requested, Petitioner claims the most analogous case is Joyce. See
2023 WL 6811015. However, a review of this case reveals that the Chief Special Master issued
an oral ruling in this case, which he incorporated in a two-page published decision. See id. at *1.
The Chief Special Master did not explain his reasoning and did not set forth any of the facts of
the case. Id. Although Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Zgheib, was also the counsel for the petitioner in
Joyce, I cannot confirm the assertions he sets forth regarding the comparability of these two cases,
nor can I assess the Chief Special Master’s reasoning. All I can ascertain from the decision cited
by Petitioner is that the petitioner in Joyce suffered a SIRVA and was awarded $215,000.00 for
past pain and suffering. See 2023 WL 6811015, at *1.
Instead, a review of the cases cited by Petitioner reveals the most comparable case to be
M.W., as both cases involved approximately four years of sequelae, several physical therapy
sessions, and two surgeries. See 2021 WL 3618177. Further, while the special master in M.W.
considered the impact the petitioner’s injury had on her position as a schoolteacher, and Petitioner
here is retired and not working, I find it significant in this analysis to also consider that Petitioner
appears to be receiving ongoing treatment and has been considered for a third surgery by Dr.
Geissler if injections do not improve her condition. Petitioner here has also attended several more
physical therapy sessions (121) than the petitioner in M.W. (71). See 2021 WL 3618177, at *3.
However, Petitioner’s case also presents several differences from the other cases she cites
as analogous. Schoonover at the time was considered the most severe SIRVA in the program, as
articulated by the Chief Special Master, but the petitioner also was left with a significant
disability. 2020 WL 5351341, at *6. Similarly, the petitioners in Meindorf and McDorman had
substantially more treatments than in this case. 2022 WL 1055475, at *2; 2021 WL 5504698, at
*3. Petitioner also argues that her case was more severe than those of the petitioners in Elmakky
and Lawson, however, each of those cases involved three surgical procedures. See 2023 Wl
6811015, at *5; 2021 WL 688590, at *6. Of note, the special master in Lawson specifically
articulated the case was much more severe than that of Schoonover, though only awarded an
increase of $5,000.00. Lawson, 2021 WL 688590, at *6. For those reasons, an award of pain and
suffering lower than that awarded in Schoonover, Meindorf, McDorman, Elmakky, and Lawson
is appropriate.
15

Case 1:20-vv-01982-UNJ Document 57 Filed 03/31/26 Page 16 of 16
VIII. Petitioner’s Out-Of-Pocket Expenses
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner is entitled to compensation for past out-of-pocket
expenses related to her vaccine-related injury which have been incurred for “diagnosis, medical or
other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . residential and custodial care and service expenses, special
equipment, related travel expenses, and facilities determined to be reasonably necessary.” § 300aa-
15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner seeks $2,323.33 in past out-of-pocket expenses, which includes $68.38 for
her flu vaccination, $609.80 in medical bills, $1,374.00 in YMCA membership dues, $143.98 for
rehabilitation equipment ordered from Amazon, and $127.00 for a round-trip Amtrak ticket for her
sister to care for her following surgery. Given that Petitioner’s injury required extensive
rehabilitation and specialized equipment, I find this request reasonable and award Petitioner the
full amount requested.
IX. Conclusion
After a careful and comprehensive review of the facts of this case and in consideration of
all the arguments presented by both parties along with the relevant case law, I find that
$195,000.00 in compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable in this case. I also
find that Petitioner’s request of $2,323.33 for out-of-pocket expenses is reasonable.
Therefore, I award a lump sum payment of $197,323.33 to be paid through an ACH deposit
to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner.13 This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a). The Clerk
of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. S. Young
Herbrina D. S. Young
Special Master
13 A previous version of this decision originally ordered Petitioner’s damages award of $195,000.00 to be
issued in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This has been corrected to order distribution of
Petitioner’s damages award to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account.
14 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.
16