VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00351
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00351
Petitioner: Brandon Pozil
Filed: 2021-01-08
Decided: 2023-10-27
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2018-09-08
Condition: syncopal episode resulting in severe facial trauma
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 149856

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 8, 2021, Brandon Pozil, a 25-year-old student, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered a syncopal episode resulting in severe facial trauma after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on September 8, 2018. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded that Mr. Pozil was entitled to compensation, finding that his injury satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. The case proceeded to a damages decision as the parties could not agree on an award amount. Mr. Pozil sustained a laceration on his chin, a loose tooth, a laceration between two teeth, and multiple facial and mandible fractures. He underwent surgery to repair these injuries, which involved arch bars, plates, screws, and wiring to his jaw. Following surgery, he was on a liquid diet for 47 days and experienced discomfort and misalignment of his jaw. He also required restorative dental work on four fractured teeth, including a root canal and crown replacement over a year after the vaccination. The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, considered the severity and duration of Mr. Pozil's injuries, comparing them to prior cases, including Hietpas, which involved a similar chin laceration and mandible fractures but a longer period of jaw immobilization. The Special Master found Mr. Pozil's initial injury and treatment to be more severe than in Hietpas, but noted that his subsequent dental work, while significant, did not equate to the continued symptoms and treatment experienced by the Hietpas petitioner. The Special Master also referenced the Marcillo case, where the maximum award was granted, to underscore Mr. Pozil's comparatively successful and quicker recovery. Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Mr. Pozil $145,000.00 for pain and suffering and $4,856.16 for actual and projected unreimbursable expenses, for a total award of $149,856.16, payable by check to Mr. Pozil. Petitioner was represented by Nancy Routh Meyers, and Respondent was represented by Emily H. Manoso.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Brandon Pozil, age 25, received a Tdap vaccine on September 8, 2018. He alleged a syncopal episode resulting in severe facial trauma. Respondent conceded entitlement, finding the injury satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. The Special Master, Brian H. Corcoran, awarded $145,000.00 for pain and suffering and $4,856.16 for unreimbursable expenses, totaling $149,856.16. The decision focused on the severity and duration of the injury, including multiple facial and mandible fractures requiring surgery with arch bars, plates, screws, and wiring, a 47-day liquid diet, and subsequent dental work including a root canal. The Special Master compared the case to Hietpas, finding Pozil's initial injury and treatment more severe but Hietpas's subsequent symptoms and treatment longer-lasting. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. Petitioner was represented by Nancy Routh Meyers, and Respondent by Emily H. Manoso.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00351-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-04-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/08/2022) regarding 23 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0351V
UNPUBLISHED
BRANDON POZIL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 8, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Vasovagal Syncope
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Emily H. Manoso, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 8, 2021, Brandon Pozil 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 he suffered a syncopal episode and severe facial
trauma caused-in-fact by the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he
received on September 8, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 12. Petitioner further alleges he
received the vaccine in the United States, that he suffered the residual effects of his injury
for more than six months, and that neither he nor any other party has filed a civil action
or received compensation for his injury, alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 12,
14-15. 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-00351-UNJ Document 25 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 2
On March 8, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.
Specifically, Respondent believes “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in
the revised Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”).” Id. at 5-6.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00351-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-27
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/02/2023) regarding 38 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/27/23 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0351V
BRANDON POZIL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 2, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Emily H. Manoso, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 8, 2021, Brandon Pozil 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 he suffered a syncopal episode resulting in severe
facial trauma after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine
on September 8, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2-3, 12. Respondent conceded entitlement, but
the parties were unable to resolve damages on their own.3 Thus, I ordered briefing on the
matter.
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).
3 After more than seven months of damages discussions, the parties reached an impasse, and Petitioner
“propose[d] submitting a briefing of the damages.” Status Report, filed Nov. 27, 2022, ECF No. 34.

Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/27/23 Page 2 of 8
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount $145,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus an agreed-
upon sum for unreimbursed expenses.
I. 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 award such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which 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 &
Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. 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 (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)).
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 & 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, I may rely on my own experience (along with my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell.
For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims,
were assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019,
the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/27/23 Page 3 of 8
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated 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 a decision of the
Court of Federal Claims several years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109
Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013). Graves instead emphasized the importance of assessing
pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence specific to the injured individual, prior
pain and suffering awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury
claims outside of the Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this 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. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards.
II. The Parties’ Arguments
The parties agree Petitioner should be awarded $4,856.16 for past and future
unreimbursed expenses.5 Thus, the only area of disagreement is the amount to be
awarded for Petitioner’s pain and suffering. Petitioner seeks $155,000.00 for past pain
and suffering. Brief at 15; Reply at 8. In contrast, Respondent argues for an award of only
$125,000.00. Opp. at 1, 11.
To support the amount he seeks, Petitioner emphasizes the gaping chin laceration
and multiple fractures suffered to his face and jaw (ten in total); the need for immediate
surgery - requiring a wired jaw for 26 days thereafter, arch bars and rubber bands for an
additional two weeks, and an inability to eat solid food for 47 days; and the impact of
these facial injuries on his appearance. Describing the adverse effects of his treatment
such as the inability to properly brush his teeth (id. at 9), Petitioner characterizes his
recovery as “brutal, slow, and painful” (id. at 8).
Regarding the duration of his injuries, Petitioner’s fractures were healing well less
than two months post-vaccination. Brief at 5. However, he then began treatment of four
fractured teeth – including a filing and crown replacement in January 2019, approximately
five months post-vaccination. Brief at 5, 9. Petitioner maintains that he suffered the
residual effects of his syncope injury as late as June 2020, when he was forced to undergo
5 This amount includes a portion for future unreimbursed expenses which has been reduced to net present
value as required under the Act. Petitioner’s Damages Brief (“Brief”), filed Dec. 14, 2022, at 6 n.1, ECF No.
36; Respondent’s Brief on Damages (“Opp.”), filed Dec. 14, 2022, at 1, 11, ECF No. 35; Petitioner’s Reply
in Further Support of Damages (“Reply”), filed Dec. 30, 2022, at 8, ECF No. 37; see Section 15(f)(4)(A).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/27/23 Page 4 of 8
a root canal. Id. at 9-10. He insists Respondent’s agreement to unreimbursed expenses,
which include an amount for future orthodontic work, constitutes an acknowledgement of
the ongoing nature of his vaccine-related injury. Id. at 10.
Petitioner compares his case favorably with Hietpas,6 in which a pain and suffering
award of $140,000.00 was issued. Brief at 13-14. Suffering a chin laceration and fractures
to her mandible,7 the Hietpas petitioner also required immediate surgery. Brief at 13. Due
to continuing jaw pain, she was forced to wear “an orthopedic cast, which is a removable
mouthpiece used to reposition the mandible” for eighteen hours a day for a year. Id.
Despite this longer time needed for the healing and repositioning of the Hietpas
petitioner’s jaw, Petitioner maintains that his injuries and surgery were more severe -
involving three mandible and seven facial fractures, as well as the wiring of his jaw during
recovery. Id. at 14. Thus, he argues that his award should be greater. Id. at 14-15.
Respondent counters that Petitioner should be awarded less than the Hietpas
petitioner. Opp. at 8. Treatment in this case”[wa]s confined to the immediate month or two
after vaccination and surgery” (id. at 9), while the Hietpas petitioner’s injury occurred over
a longer time period – involving pain, cracking, and popping in her right jaw lasting a year
post-vaccination (id. at 8). He argues that a connection between Petitioner’s later dental
work and his syncopal injury is tenuous. Id.
Respondent cites four additional cases involving syncopal injuries (Edwards, Neff,
Xanthopolous, and, Stack) and where awards ranging from $100,000.00 to $175,000.00
were issued.8 Opp. at 10-11. He acknowledges, however, that these cases offer little
guidance as they involved agreed-upon amounts determined through proffer or
stipulation. Id. Although he discusses one case involving a substantive damages decision,
H.S. (involving a pain and suffering award of $60,000.00 for a syncopal injury featuring
6 Hietpas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1702V, 2021 WL 688620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 5,
2021) (awarding a total award of $155,544.26 which included $140,000.00 for pain and suffering).
7 The mandible is “the horseshoe-shaped bone forming the lower jaw.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL
DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S”) at 1101 (32th ed. 2012).
8 Edwards v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0138V, 2019 WL 7597444 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec.
13, 2019) (awarding $100,000.00 for pain and suffering from a syncopal injury resulting in a fractured jaw
and teeth, ruptured eardrum, and chin laceration pursuant to a proffer); Neff v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 08-0906V, 2010 WL 2710646 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2020) (awarding $110,000.00 for
a syncopal injury resulting in concussion, intracranial hemorrhage, and ongoing loss of smell pursuant to a
stipulation); Stark v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-0115V, 2014 WL 346450 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 6, 2014) (awarding $175,000.00 for a syncopal injury resulting in severe head trauma, right subdural
hematoma, a non-depressed skull fracture, seizure disorder, post-traumatic cognitive and physical
impairments, headaches, fatigue, and dizziness pursuant to a stipulation). One cited case: Xanthopolous,
No. 14-1101V, issued Aug. 21, 2015 (awarding $112,500.00 for a syncopal injury resulting in a traumatic
brain injury), can be found at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc (last visited
Aug. 2, 2023).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/27/23 Page 5 of 8
head trauma, a concussion, and skull and C-1 vertebra fractures), Respondent appears
to acknowledge the lack of similarity between present circumstances and that case. Id. at
7; see H.S. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-1057V, 2015 WL 6155891 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Sept. 25, 2015). Other than a brief mention, he provides no further discussion
or comparison of Petitioner’s circumstances with those experienced by the H.S. petitioner.
In his reply, Petitioner reiterates the assertion that his pain and suffering exceeded
that of the Hietpas petitioner. Reply at 1. Criticizing Respondent’s emphasis on the
duration of the Hietpas petitioner’s symptoms, Petitioner argues that “the longer duration
is balanced by the severity of [his] injury and the intensity of his treatment, which
Respondent entirely ignores.” Id. at 2. And he characterizes Respondent’s assertion that
not all the dental work Petitioner required should be linked to his syncopal injury as “a
collateral attack on entitlement” – belatedly raised since entitlement was already
conceded. Id. at 3-4. Finally, Petitioner condemns Respondent’s reliance on stipulated
and proffered cases, and a damages continuum which he maintains runs counter to the
holding in Graves. Id. at 5-7 (quoting my discussion of the Graves holding in Smallwood
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0291V, 2020 WL 2954958, at *13 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Apr. 29, 2020)); see also Graves, 109 Fed. Cl. at 590.
III. 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 his
awareness of his injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing the analysis in this case, I review the record as a whole to include
the medical records, declarations, affidavits, and all other filed evidence, plus the parties’
briefs and other pleadings. I consider prior awards for pain and suffering in previous
syncope cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases.9 However, I base
9 Since its inception on July 1, 2014, 30 cases involving syncope injuries have been resolved in SPU: 23
by proffered amounts, 3 by stipulated amounts, and 4 by reasoned decisions. Statistical data for all cases
resolved by proffered amounts reveals the median amount awarded to be $85,612.28, with two cases
involving annuities. The awards in these cases have typically ranged from $59,362.91 to $101,383.66,
representing cases between the first and third quartiles and awards comprised of all categories of
compensation.
The proffered amounts awarded in the most common type of syncope case, involving injuries to
the face, jaw, and teeth, are slightly higher - with a median amount of $92,990.16. Most other syncope
cases involve concussions and ongoing symptoms related to hearing and balance. The awards in these
cases are slightly lower - with a median of $75,557.58 for proffered amounts.
Three of the four cases requiring reasoned decisions involved the largest amounts awarded in
syncope cases: $155,544.26 in Hietpas; $190,000.00 in Campbell; and $286,311.91 in Marcillo. Hietpas v.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/27/23 Page 6 of 8
my determination on the circumstances of this case.
Mr. Pozil (then a 25-year-old student at the University of North Carolina) suffered
a syncopal episode after receiving the Tdap vaccine at a Target store on September 8,
2018. Found on the sidewalk outside the store bleeding from his mouth and chin,
Petitioner suffered a laceration on his chin, a loose tooth, laceration between two teeth,
and multiple facial and mandible fractures, but no brain or cervical injuries. Exhibit 2 at 3;
Exhibit 3 at 22-23. Pictures taken at the emergency room show obvious damage to
Petitioner’s mouth and jaw, and Petitioner was administered Percocet for his pain. Exhibit
3 at 23-24, 29-30 (results of imaging). Because there was no oral surgeon on call,
Petitioner was transferred to another facility. Id. at 30.
During surgery, Petitioner’s mouth and teeth were correctly positioned and
fractures of the palate and mandible were repaired using arch bars, plates and screws,
and wiring. Exhibit 3 at 41-45. The next day, he was released from the hospital with
instructions to avoid strenuous activity, to maintain a full liquid diet, and to carry wire
cutters in case he needed to cut the wires to vomit. Id. at 200.
By late October 2018 (almost two months post-vaccination), Petitioner’s fractures
were healing well with “fairly good range of motion” (Exhibit 11 at 37-38), and his wiring
had been removed earlier that month (id. at 24). However, he experienced “discomfort at
the right angle of the mandible [and his] [t]ooth alignment fe[lt] slightly off.” Id. at 37. He
was instructed to “begin chewing and gradually advance [his] diet . . . [and] scheduled for
arch bar removal under sedation in two weeks.” Id. at 38.
In January 2019, Petitioner visited a dentist for restorative dental work on four
fractured teeth, which included bonding of the teeth and a full crown replacement. Exhibit
5 at 2-3. Over a year later, in April 2020, he returned to the dentist complaining of severe
pain. Exhibit 7 at 4. He was diagnosed with necrotic pulp and symptomatic apical
periodontitis of tooth 14 and referred for a root canal and crown. Id. at 17. He underwent
this treatment in June 2020. Exhibit 8 at 7.
I agree that Hietpas constitutes a helpful comparison case, and the parties present
credible arguments for how it should be applied herein. Petitioner’s initial injury, surgery,
and treatment for the first two-months post-vaccination were clearly more severe. See
Hietpas, 2021 WL 688620, at *2. The pain and suffering caused by the wiring of
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1702V, 2021 WL 688620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 5, 2021);
Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0381V, 2023 WL 1512589 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.
4, 2023); Marcillo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-2061V, 2023 WL 3452274 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Apr. 14, 2023). The fourth case involved an award of $60,000.00 in a case involving a concussion. H.S. v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 14-1057V, 2015 WL 6155891 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 25, 2015).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/27/23 Page 7 of 8
Petitioner’s jaw for 26 days and inability to eat solid food for an additional three weeks
cannot be overstated. However, the Hietpas petitioner continued to experience a
misalignment of her jaw after initial treatment, which caused her pain, popping, and
crackling in her jaw. Id. at *2-3. More than a year post-vaccination, she was fitted with an
orthopedic cast which she was required to wear for 18 hours a day for a year to keep her
jaw immobile. Id. at *3. Although Petitioner’s additional dental work was not insignificant,
it does not equate to the Hietpas petitioner’s continued symptoms and treatment.
Petitioner reported severe symptoms (pain) for less than two months in 2020, prior to his
root canal in June 2020. Exhibits 7 at 4, 17; Exhibit 8 at 7.
I also find the Marcillo case – in which the maximum pain and suffering award
($250,000.00) allowed was issued - to be instructive.10 Marcillo, 2023 WL 3452274, at
*1, 7. The Marcillo petitioner also underwent surgery and required wiring of his jaw during
recovery. Id. at *3. However, he experienced multiple complications thereafter - including
a severe infection, and required two additional corrective surgeries. Id. at *4-5. More than
two years post-vaccination, the Marcillo petitioner was still wearing braces. Id. at *6.
Marcillo illustrates some of the difficulties and fears associated with such an extensive
surgery and treatment – and helps underscore Petitioner’s comparatively successful and
quick recovery.
Thus, the amount of pain and suffering damages awarded in this case should more
closely mirror what I awarded in Hietpas – but given the more severe initial injury and
treatment, I will award slightly more than what the Hietpas petitioner received. I find
$145,000.00 represents an appropriate amount for Petitioner’s past pain and
suffering.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $149,856.16, representing
$145,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $4,856.16 for actual and projected11
unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of
the Vaccine Act. Id.
10 The syncope injuries in the other two SPU cases involving reasoned damages decisions – H.S. and
Campbell, are dissimilar to the injury in this case. See Campbell, 2023 WL 1512589 (involving a fall down
some stairs and fracture of her leg); H.S., 2015 WL 6155891 (involving fractures of the skull and C1
vertebra). Therefore, they do not warrant further discussion.
11 Because a portion of this amount has been designated for Petitioner’s projected unreimbursable
expenses, it has been reduced to net present value pursuant to Section 15(f)(4)(A).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00351-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/27/23 Page 8 of 8
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12 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