VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00014
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00014
Petitioner: Renee Stidd
Filed: 2021-01-04
Decided: 2025-04-01
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-29
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 140499

AI-assisted case summary:
Renee Stidd filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 29, 2020. The respondent conceded that her injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that she had suffered residual effects for more than six months. Based on this concession and the evidence, entitlement to compensation was granted. The parties were unable to informally resolve the issue of damages, leading to a hearing on February 28, 2025. Petitioner sought $140,000.00 for pain and suffering, while the respondent recommended a lower, unspecified amount. The parties agreed on $7,423.22 for unreimbursed medical expenses and $3,076.08 for lost wages. The Chief Special Master awarded $130,000.00 for pain and suffering, resulting in a total lump sum award of $140,499.30, representing compensation for all damages available under the program.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00014-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-01
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/01/2023) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00014-UNJ Document 37 Filed 06/01/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0014V
UNPUBLISHED
RENEE STIDD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 1, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 4, 2021, Renee Stidd filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered
on October 29, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 1, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Specifically, Respondent “has concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00014-UNJ Document 37 Filed 06/01/23 Page 2 of 2
with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees
that Petitioner has suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00014-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-01
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/28/2025) regarding 45 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00014-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/01/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-14V
RENEE STIDD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 28, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 4, 2021, Renee Stidd filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a Table injury – a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) - as a result of her receipt of the flu vaccine
on October 29, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters. Although entitlement was conceded, the parties could
not informally resolve the issue of damages, and therefore they were ordered to file briefs
setting forth their respective arguments, to be resolved via an expedited “Motions Day”
hearing, which took place on February 28, 2025.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00014-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/01/25 Page 2 of 3
Petitioner seeks an award of $140,000.00 in compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering, while Respondent recommends an unspecified lower amount is
appropriate. (Pain and suffering was the only damages element in dispute at the
hearing).3
At the hearing, I issued an oral ruling on damages constituting my findings of fact
and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A). An official recording of the
proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in
this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded. As
discussed during my oral ruling, in another recent decision I discussed at length the legal
standard to be considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within
SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections I and II of
Yodowitz v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0370V, 2024 WL 4284926, at *1-3
(Fed. Cl. Aug. 23, 2024) to the instant ruling and decision. Additionally, the official
recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well
as specific facts relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further
informed my decision awarding damages herein.
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that $130,000.00
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering.4 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to $7,423.22 in actual
unreimbursable expenses and $3,076.08 for lost wages.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum of $140,499.30 (representing an
award of $130,000.00 for pain and suffering, $7,423.22 in actual unreimbursable
expenses, and $3,076.08 for lost wages) to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
3 The parties did, however, agree to an award of $7,423.22 for unreimbursed medical expenses, and
$3,076.08 for lost wages. Both sums are included in my Decision.
4 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00014-UNJ Document 50 Filed 04/01/25 Page 3 of 3
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 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.
3