VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00346
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00346
Petitioner: Cassandra Hamilton
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2023-07-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-03-13
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 60000

AI-assisted case summary:
Cassandra Hamilton filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on March 13, 2020. She reported pain and limited range of motion in her left shoulder starting three weeks after the vaccination. Medical records documented a strain of the infraspinatus tendon with a partial thickness tear. Hamilton underwent physical therapy for her shoulder pain, which improved over time. The respondent conceded that Hamilton was entitled to compensation, agreeing that her injury satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table for SIRVA. The parties were unable to agree on damages, and the court awarded Hamilton $60,000.00 for actual pain and suffering. The decision was issued on July 20, 2023, following the initial ruling on entitlement on February 23, 2023. The petition was filed on January 8, 2021.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00346-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/23/2023 ) regarding 34 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/28/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0346V
UNPUBLISHED
CASSANDRA HAMILTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 23, 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)
Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Martin Conway Galvin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 8, 2021, Cassandra Hamilton filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on March 13,
2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the
United States, she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months,
and she has not received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her
vaccine-related injuries or filed a civil action for her injuries prior to filing this petition.
Petition at ¶¶ 1, 19, 20, 22. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/28/23 Page 2 of 2
On May 10, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record (ECF No. 31).
On July 25, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, along with a response to
Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record, in which he concedes that Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 33) at 1.
Specifically, Respondent states that “[i]t is respondent’s position that petitioner has
satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications
and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “the
records show that petitioner timely filed her case, that she received the flu vaccine in the
United States, and that she satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the
residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine
administration.” 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-00346-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-20
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/14/2023) regarding 38 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0346V
CASSANDRA HAMILTON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 14, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Martin Conway Galvin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Cassandra Hamilton filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on March 13,
2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters. Respondent conceded entitlement, but the parties have been unable
to agree on the appropriate amount of damages.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $60,000.00 for actual pain and suffering.
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-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 9
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was activated on April 28, 2021 (ECF No. 14). When Respondent had
not determined how he intended to proceed in this case a year later, pursuant to my “one
year rule” Petitioner was permitted to file a motion for a ruling on the record on May 10,
2022 (ECF No. 31). Petitioner’s motion addressed both entitlement to compensation and
the amount of damages she deemed appropriate.
On July 25, 2022, Respondent reacted to Petitioner’s motion and submitted a Rule
4(c) Report (ECF No. 33). Respondent conceded that Petitioner was entitled to
compensation, and while he objected to briefing damages before entitlement was
resolved, Respondent nonetheless addressed damages.
On February 23, 2023, a ruling was entered determining that Petitioner is entitled
to compensation (ECF No. 34). The parties were directed thereafter to negotiate damages
(ECF No. 35). However, because the parties represented that such discussions were not
likely to be fruitful (ECF No. 36), Petitioner requested that I make a decision on damages
based on the parties’ existing briefing. The matter of damages is now ripe for resolution.
II. Relevant Medical History
On March 13, 2020, Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly in her left
deltoid at CVS. Ex. 5 at 3. Three weeks later, on April 3, 2020, Petitioner had a phone
consultation with Dr. Wassim Younes for left shoulder pain. Ex. 4 at 3-4. Petitioner
reported pain and limited range of motion for three weeks. Id. at 4. Dr. Younes assessed
her with pain in her left shoulder post flu injection suspected to have been injected into
her bursa. Id. He recommended that she be seen by an orthopedist and have an x-ray
and ultrasound. Id.
Three days later, Petitioner had a telemedicine visit via phone with orthopedist Dr.
Lucas Buchler. Ex. 1 at 61. Petitioner reported a three week history of left shoulder pain
following a flu shot on March 13, 2020. Id. She reported that the injection location was
high, and that she had an immediate onset of pain and limited motion. Id. Her pain was
worse with movement and overhead activity, and woke her at night. Id. She was taking
600 mg of ibuprofen two to three times a day, with minimal relief. Id. Because the visit
was done by phone, there was no examination. Id. at 64. Dr. Buchler determined that her
history was concerning for rotator cuff tendinopathy or subacromial bursitis, and ordered
an MRI. Id.
Three days after her orthopedist appointment (April 9th), Petitioner underwent a
left shoulder MRI. Ex. 3 at 7. The MRI revealed a strain of the infraspinatus tendon, with
2

Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 3 of 9
a partial thickness tear of the infraspinatus tendon. Id. Intramuscular strain of the
infraspinatus muscle was also noted. Id. There was no joint effusion or fluid within the
subacromial/subdeltoid bursa. Id. Dr. Buchler called Petitioner with the MRI results the
next day, on April 10th, and recommended non-surgical treatment with oral anti-
inflammatory medications and physical therapy. Ex. 1 at 39.
On April 14, 2020, Petitioner underwent a physical therapy (“PT”) initial evaluation
via telehealth for her left shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 64. She reported very limited range of
motion (“ROM”), and inability to sleep on her shoulder. Id. She had tried jogging but it was
painful. Id. Her left shoulder active ROM was 100 degrees in flexion, 80 degrees in
abduction, 60 degrees in extension, and 40 degrees in external rotation.3 Id. at 65. She
was assessed with marked loss of active ROM in all planes with increased pain. Id. at 66.
Petitioner attended ten additional PT sessions via telehealth between April 16 and May
28, 2020. Ex. 2 at 41-62. She was discharged from PT on May 28th, reporting an 85%
improvement in her symptoms since PT began. Id. at 41. She had improved active ROM
in all planes, with pain at end ranges especially with abduction and external rotation. Id.
at 42. She was directed to continue her home exercise program. Id.
On June 4, 2020, Petitioner returned to orthopedist Dr. Buchler. Ex. 1 at 19. She
reported that her symptoms had improved, but she continued to have persistent left
shoulder pain. Id. at 20. On examination, her left shoulder ROM in forward elevation was
170 degrees (active) and 180 degrees (passive). Id. Her ROM in external rotation was 60
degrees. Id. She exhibited positive Hawkins impingement signs, and negative Neer
impingement signs. Id. She had positive liftoff signs, and negative signs on the belly press,
speeds, Yergason, bicep stretch, O’Brien’s, and cross body compression tests. Id. She
was tender to palpation in the subacromial space. Id. Dr. Buchler offered treatment
options of either activity modification, oral anti-inflammatory medications and a return to
PT, or a subacromial cortisone injection with a return to PT. Id. at 21. Petitioner opted to
try a short course of oral anti-inflammatories with PT. Id.
Petitioner returned for a second round of PT via telehealth beginning on August
10, 2020. Ex. 2 at 34. She reported that since her discharge from PT, her symptoms had
remained stable, and had not improved despite continuing her home exercise program.
Id. Her left shoulder active ROM was 165 degrees in flexion, 155 degrees in abduction,
70 degrees in external rotation, and within functional limits for internal rotation. Id. at 35.
She exhibited minor limitations in active ROM, especially in end range elevation. Id. at
3 Normal shoulder ROM for adults ranges from 165 to 180 degrees in flexion, 170 to 180 degrees in
abduction, 50 to 60 degrees in extension, and 90 to 100 degrees in external rotation. Cynthia C. Norkin and
D. Joyce White, MEASUREMENT OF JOINT MOTION: A GUIDE TO GONIOMETRY 72, 76, 80, 88 (F. A. Davis Co.,
5th ed. 2016).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 4 of 9
36. She also exhibited pain and weakness into shoulder elevation and external rotation
with resisted strength testing. Id.
Petitioner attended a total of 20 PT sessions between August 10 and November
13, 2020, all via telemedicine. Ex. 2 at 10-35; Ex. 8 at 8-26. At discharge on November
13, she reported that her shoulder function was at about 90%, with minimal functional
limitations. Ex. 8 at 24. She was experiencing only occasional low level pain with certain
reaching movements. Id. Her strength was greatly improved, and she had pain free active
ROM in all planes. Id. Her ROM was 165 in flexion and 160 degrees in abduction. Id. at
25. She was discharged from PT and directed to continue her home exercise program.
Id. at 24.
On December 18, 2020, Petitioner was seen by Dr. Melissa Dugan Kim for a
gynecological examination. Ex. 7 at 25. She reported that she continued to experience
shoulder pain related to her flu vaccine. Id. It appears there was no further discussion or
treatment related to her shoulder, and no further medical records have been filed.
III. Affidavit Evidence
Petitioner filed an affidavit in support of her claim. Ex. 6. In it, she maintained that
before March 2020, she was very healthy and rarely needed medical care. Id. at ¶ 2.
When she received the flu vaccine on March 13, 2020, she noticed the needle was placed
high on her arm near her shoulder. Id. at ¶ 4. That evening, her left shoulder and arm
were “extremely sore and painful,” and she had difficulty sleeping. Id. at ¶ 5. She expected
the soreness to ease over time, but instead the pain worsened over the next few days.
Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.
Petitioner tried to manage her arm pain at home over the next few weeks. Ex. 6 at
¶ 8. She states that most of the time, the pain was at level ten on a scale of one to ten.
Id. at ¶ 8. She experienced pain reaching, getting dressed, washing hair, or even grabbing
a pen. Id. When she learned that her insurer had a telemedicine service, she made an
appointment. Id. at ¶ 9. She then was able to consult with an orthopedist via telemedicine
as well. Id. at ¶ 10.
After an MRI, Dr. Buchler recommended PT. Ex. 6 at ¶ 11. Her PT was conducted
through video conferencing due to state stay at home orders related to the COVID-19
Pandemic. Id. at ¶ 12. With PT, her ROM improved, although she still had difficulty with
certain movements, and her arm pain continued to wake her at night, though less
frequently. Id. at ¶ 13.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 5 of 9
A second round of PT was also performed remotely because the Pandemic was
worsening. Ex. 6 at ¶ 15. By the late fall of 2020, she was no longer in constant pain but
continued to have pain with certain movements. Id. at ¶ 16. With movements such as
reaching overhead or behind her, or rotating her shoulder, her pain increased from one
out of ten to three or four out of ten. Id. Over time, her progress plateaued, at which time
she was discharged from PT. Id. at ¶ 17.
IV. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner proposes an award of $75,000.00 in pain and suffering as the sole
component of damages for her SIRVA. Petitioner’s Memorandum in Support of a Ruling
on the Record, filed May 10, 2022, at 10 (ECF No. 31) (“Br.”). In support of her position,
Petitioner cites Decoretz (awarding $75,000 in pain and suffering), Kim (awarding
$75,000 in pain and suffering), and Boyd (awarding $80,000 in pain and suffering).4
Petitioner emphasizes that she sought care more quickly, and underwent
significantly more PT sessions than the Decoretz petitioner. Br. at 12-13. Both petitioners
had findings on their MRIs, and neither underwent additional interventions such as a
steroid injection. Id. Petitioner also asserts that her period of more severe pain lasted
longer than the Decoretz petitioner. Id. at 13. And Petitioner characterizes her injury as
more severe than that of the Kim petitioner, with earlier intervention and almost three
times as many PT sessions. Id. at 13-14. Petitioner views her injury as slightly less severe
than Boyd, however, since that petitioner required further assessment more than three
years after vaccination. Id. at 15.
Respondent proposes a pain and suffering award of $55,000.00. Respondent’s
Rule 4(c) Report and Response, filed July 25, 2022, at *6 (ECF No. 33) (“Opp.”).
Respondent relies on damages decisions in Ramos (awarding $40,000 in pain and
suffering), Norton (awarding $55,000 in pain and suffering), and Rayborn (awarding
$55,000 in pain and suffering).5
Ramos involved no surgery or steroid injections, treatment was limited to PT, and
as here the claimant “improved within a few months.” Opp. at 8. Respondent mistakenly
4 Decoretz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0391V, 2021 WL 2346468 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
7, 2021); Kim v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-418V, 2018 WL 3991022 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
July 20, 2018); and Boyd v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1107V, 2021 WL 4165160 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Aug. 12, 2021).
5 Ramos v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1005V, 2021 WL 688576 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4,
2021); Norton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1432V. 2021 WL 4805231 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Sept. 14, 2021); and Rayborn v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-226V, 2020 WL 5522948 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 14, 2020).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 6 of 9
asserts, however, that Petitioner underwent 20 PT sessions compared to 11 in Ramos,
when the record in this case establishes that Ms. Hamilton attended a total of 31 PT
sessions.
Respondent also asserts that this case is similar to Norton, since both petitioners
sought care within a seven month span, and both made improvements within several
months of starting PT. Opp. at 9. However, the Norton petitioner also received a cortisone
injection, suggesting that a higher award would not be warranted in this case. Id. Finally,
Respondent asserts that this case is similar to Rayborn in that both petitioners had 20 PT
sessions, no surgery, and seven months of treatment. Id.
Respondent distinguishes the cases cited by Petitioner, noting that the Decoretz
and Boyd petitioners continued treatment much longer than Petitioner, until 16 months
and two and a half years after vaccination, respectively. Opp. at 10-11. Respondent also
asserts that medical records documented that the petitioners in Decoretz, Kim, and Boyd
experienced severe pain, while Petitioner’s records do not document such severe pain.
Id.
V. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4).
Additionally, a petitioner may recover “actual unreimbursable expenses incurred
before the date of judgment awarding such expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-
related injury for which the petitioner seeks compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on
behalf of the person who suffered such injury, and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other
remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined to be reasonably necessary.” Section
15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to each element of
compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996
WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18, 1996).
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-
1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for
emotional distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a
mathematical formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 93-0172V,
1996 WL 300594, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and
suffering is inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when
determining an award for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity
of the injury; and 3) duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (citing
6

Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 7 of 9
McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240
(Fed. Cir. 1995)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is
nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and
suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages
in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated that the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field
of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
That decision maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering awards into
a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is compared to the
most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 589-90. Instead, Graves assessed
pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering awards
within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the Vaccine
Program. Id. at 593-95. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely cuts off
higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible awards
as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Graves is not controlling of this case,
but provides a reasoned way to evaluate pain and suffering awards.
VI. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
The record reflects, and the parties do not dispute, that at all times Petitioner was
a competent adult with no impairments that would impact her awareness of her injury.
Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury.
In this case, Petitioner’s injury continued to require treatment for eight months until
her discharge from PT in November 2020. A month later, she reported during an unrelated
medical appointment that her pain continued, although she did not seek or receive
treatment at that time. Thus, the record documents continued pain for nine months. By
her May 28, 2020 PT discharge, 2.5 months after vaccination, she was 85% improved.
Thus, she had substantial relief relatively quickly, with lingering milder restrictions.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 8 of 9
As to the severity of Petitioner’s injury, Petitioner’s initial ROM deficits were
“marked.” Ex. 2 at 65. However, and as noted, she experienced improvement not long
after. Although her medical records generally do not document pain levels, I note that
Petitioner sought care within three weeks in the early days of the stay at home orders
related to the COVID-19 Pandemic, suggesting some urgency and intensity to her pain
levels. Overall, Petitioner’s injury appears to fall on the milder side when compared to
other compensated SIRVA cases. Her pain and ROM restrictions largely resolved within
eight months with conservative care of 31 PT sessions and oral anti-inflammatories. It is
apparent that Petitioner worked hard to aid her own recovery, having achieved a good
outcome with PT done completely remotely.
I find that the best comparables cited by the parties are Decoretz and Rayborn.
This case is similar to Decoretz, albeit with a shorter duration of symptoms. The Decoretz
petitioner attended fewer PT sessions (17, compared to 31 in this case), but over a much
longer period of time, seven months. In addition, the Decoretz petitioner was diagnosed
with adhesive capsulitis. Although the Decoretz petitioner delayed seeking care longer
than Ms. Hamilton, her injury continued, in mild form, for several months longer. Rayborn
has relevance herein because the claimant in it, as here, experienced continued
symptoms for approximately nine months. The Rayborn petitioner delayed seeking care
for four months and had fewer PT sessions, but also had a cortisone injection.
Given the foregoing, I find that $60,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.
Conclusion
Based on consideration of the record as a whole,6 I award Petitioner a lump sum
payment of $60,000.00 in actual pain and suffering, in the form of a check payable
to Petitioner.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.7
6 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)).
7 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00346-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/20/23 Page 9 of 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9