VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00494
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00494
Petitioner: Louis Brandt
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2024-03-11
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-21
Condition: right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 65730

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 11, 2021, Louis Brandt filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on October 21, 2019. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (SPU). On June 8, 2022, the Respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Mr. Brandt satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and its accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. The Respondent did not identify any other causes for the injury. The public decision notes that Mr. Brandt timely filed his case, received the vaccine in the United States, and suffered residual effects for more than six months, satisfying statutory requirements. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on June 10, 2022, finding Mr. Brandt entitled to compensation. Following the entitlement ruling, the parties were unable to resolve damages independently. On March 11, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision Awarding Damages. The decision details Mr. Brandt's medical history, including his initial complaint of soreness approximately two weeks after vaccination, conservative treatment including ice, heat, pain medication, and physical therapy over several months. Imaging revealed tendinosis, a small tear, and impingement. Mr. Brandt's range of motion was mildly limited and improved with physical therapy, and he did not require surgery. The Special Master noted that Mr. Brandt consistently characterized his pain as soreness or fatigue, never reporting pain above 4/10, and that his formal treatment concluded approximately eight months after vaccination. The Special Master reviewed prior SIRVA cases and compared Mr. Brandt's situation to those in the record. The Special Master found Mr. Brandt's case to be most comparable to the Dagen case, which resulted in an award of $65,000.00 for pain and suffering. Mr. Brandt was awarded a total of $65,730.38, comprising $65,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $730.38 for actual unreimbursed expenses. Petitioner's counsel at various stages included LeeAnne Pedrick of Muller Brazil, LLP, and later Danielle Strait of Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA. Respondent's counsel was Lauren Kells of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over the entitlement ruling and the final decision awarding damages.

Theory of causation field:
Louis Brandt, age 64, received an influenza vaccine on October 21, 2019. He alleged a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The Respondent conceded that Petitioner met the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. Mr. Brandt underwent conservative treatment including physical therapy, pain medication, and modalities. Imaging showed tendinosis, a small tear, and impingement. The Special Master found the injury to be mild overall, with pain not exceeding 4/10 and mild limitations in range of motion that improved with treatment. Surgery was not required. The Special Master awarded $65,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $730.38 for unreimbursed expenses, totaling $65,730.38. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on March 11, 2024. Petitioner's counsel included LeeAnne Pedrick and Danielle Strait; Respondent's counsel was Lauren Kells.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00494-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-07-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/10/2022) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 33 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0494V
UNPUBLISHED
LOUIS BRANDT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 10, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu);
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA).
LeeAnne Pedrick, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, Louis Brandt 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 right-sided shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered
on October 21, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 8, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that
Petitioner has satisfied the criteria for SIRVA, as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table
(“Table”) and the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”).
Respondent did not identify any other causes for Petitioner’s right shoulder injury. Rule
4(c) Report at 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)). With respect to other statutory and
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-00494-UNJ Document 33 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 2
jurisdictional issues, the records show that Petitioner timely filed his case, that he received
the flu vaccine in the United States, and that he satisfies the statutory severity requirement
by suffering the residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months
after vaccine administration. Id. (citing Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)).
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-00494-2
Date issued/filed: 2024-03-11
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/14/2023) regarding 42 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0494V
LOUIS BRANDT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 14, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Danielle Strait, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Louis Brandt 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 as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received
on October 21, 2019, he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccination (“SIRVA”) as
defined on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Petition (ECF No. 1) at Preamble. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the
“SPU”). Although a ruling on entitlement in Petitioner’s favor was issued in June 2022,
the parties have been unable to resolve damages on their own.
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 (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 10
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $65,730.38 (representing $65,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, plus $730.38 for actual unreimbursed expenses).
I. Procedural History
A month after filing his petition, Mr. Brandt filed the medical records and the signed
declaration3 required under the Vaccine Act. Exs. 1-10, filed Jan. 27, 2021, ECF Nos. 5-
6; see Section 11(c). On April 21, 2021, Petitioner’s filings were deemed sufficiently
complete, and the case was assigned to the SPU (OSM’s adjudicatory system for
resolution of cases deemed likely to settle). ECF No. 10.
While awaiting Respondent’s tentative position, Petitioner filed updated medical
records. Ex. 11, filed Nov. 18, 2021, ECF No. 19.4 On June 8, 2022, Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) Report conceding Petitioner was entitled to compensation; a Ruling on
Entitlement was issued two days later. ECF Nos. 29, 31.
On August 10, 2022, Petitioner confirmed that he had rejected Respondent’s
proffer, and moved for a formal adjudication of damages. Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling
on the Record for Damages (“Brief”) filed August 10, 2022, ECF No. 34; see also
Respondent’s Response (“Response”) filed Oct. 17, 2022, ECF No. 37; Petitioner’s Reply
(“Reply”), filed Nov. 1, 2022, ECF No. 38.5 The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Authority
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
3 Rather than an affidavit, the statement provided by Petitioner is a declaration signed under penalty of
perjury as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746.
4 Petitioner also filed a supplemental declaration attesting that there were no outstanding medical records.
Ex. 12, filed Jan. 27, 2022, ECF No. 24. This declaration is not particularly germane to the parties’
arguments or to my own assessment of damages.
5 Petitioner’s attorney of record up to and including submission of his Reply Brief was LeeAnne Pedrick at
Maglio, Christopher, & Toale, P.A. Petitioner filed a motion to substitute Ms. Strait as new counsel on
January 20, 2023, ECF No. 40, which the Clerk of Court granted on January 23, 2023 (Non-PDF).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 10
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.6 Hodges v. Sec’y of
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 the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
The Graves court 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 590. 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
6 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.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 4 of 10
Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. 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. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards.
III. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU7
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of January 1, 2023, 3,031 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU
on July 1, 2014. Compensation was awarded in 2,950 of these cases, with the remaining
81 cases dismissed.
Of the compensated cases, 1,677 SPU SIRVA cases involved a prior ruling that
petitioner was entitled to compensation. In only 148 of these cases was the amount of
damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision. As I have previously
stated, 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.8
1,501 of this subset of post-entitlement determination, compensation-awarding
cases, were the product of informal settlement - cases via proffer and 28 cases via
stipulation. Although all proposed amounts denote an agreement reached by the parties,
those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than any formal agreement
or acknowledgment by Respondent that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages. Of course, even though any such informally-resolved case must still be
approved by a special master, these determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number
of such cases, these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of
awards received overall in comparable cases.” Sakovits, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
(emphasis in original).
7 All figures included in this decision are derived from a review of the decisions awarding compensation
within the SPU. All decisions reviewed are, or will be, available publicly. All figures and calculations cited
are approximate.
8 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).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 5 of 10
The remaining 1,273 compensated SIRVA cases were resolved via stipulated
agreement of the parties without a prior ruling on entitlement. These agreements are often
described as “litigative risk” settlements, and thus represent a reduced percentage of the
compensation which otherwise would be awarded. Due to the complexity of these
settlement discussions, many which involve multiple competing factors, these awards do
not constitute a reliable gauge of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded
in other SPU SIRVA cases.
The data for all groups described above reflect the expected differences in
outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated9
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 148 1,501 28 1,273
Lowest $40,757.91 $22,500.00 $45,000.00 $5,000.00
1st Quartile $70,382.97 $65,000.00 $90,000.00 $40,000.00
Median $93,649.92 $85,000.00 $122,886.42 $56,250.00
3rd Quartile $125,000.00 $112,654.00 $161,001.79 $82,500.00
Largest $265,034.87 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 148 SPU SIRVA cases which required a reasoned damages decision,
compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from $40,000.00
to $210,000.00, with $90,000.00 as the median amount. Only seven of these cases
involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from $250.00
to $1,500.00.10
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 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 (“ROM”), and MRI imaging showed
9 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
10 Additionally, a first-year future pain and suffering award of $10,000.00 was made in one case. Dhanoa
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 6 of 10
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 SIRVAs usually resolved after one to two cortisone injections
and two months or less of physical therapy (“PT”). None required surgery. Except in one
case involving very mild pain levels, the duration of the SIRVA injury ranged from six to
30 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 30 days of vaccination.
All 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 PT sessions - occasionally spanning several
years, and multiple cortisone injections, were required in these cases. In six cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
A. Consideration of the Evidence
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. In performing this analysis, I have reviewed the record as a whole,
including all medical records, declarations, affidavits, and all other filed evidence, plus the
parties’ briefs and other pleadings. I also have taken into account prior awards for pain
and suffering in both SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases, and rely upon my experience
adjudicating these cases. However, I base my ultimate determination on the specific
circumstances of this case.
The medical records establish that Mr. Brandt was a 64-year-old retiree when he
received the subject vaccine in his dominant right arm on October 21, 2019.
Approximately two weeks later, he returned unscheduled to his primary care practice to
report ongoing “soreness” in the deltoid muscle and shoulder. Ex. 9 at 484. He secured
the first available appointment with his primary care provider (“PCP”) a few days later on
November 8, 2019, at which he reported persistent pain particularly with motion. Id. at 53.
He denied any redness or swelling, and he had not tried applying heat or ice to the area.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 7 of 10
Id. He had taken ibuprofen 400mg “occasionally” without apparent improvement. Id. His
active range of motion was reduced due to pain. Id.
Later in November 2019, Petitioner notified his PCP that ice, heat, and ibuprofen
had delivered “no relief.” Ex. 9 at 27. An x-ray revealed tendinosis fraying of the bursal
surface; small partial-thickness bursal surface tear of the right infraspinatus; and
impingement. Id. at 69. Petitioner inquired about steroids, but the PCP instead
recommended higher-dose ibuprofen or naproxen. Id. at 26.
At his initial physical therapy (“PT”) evaluation on January 21, 2020, Petitioner
reported pain of 4/10, with some “mild” impacts (e.g., difficulty washing his back,
socializing, and sleeping). Ex. 6 at 88-89. He had long head biceps tendon tenderness
and decreased right shoulder flexion (160/169 degrees), but normal abduction and
strength. Id. at 89. The therapist viewed the injury to be “uncomplicated.” Id. at 90. He
would attend PT twice a week for six weeks, plus self-massage and ice daily. Id.
By the twelfth PT appointment on March 2, 2020, Petitioner had improved flexion
(180/177 degrees), strength, proprioception, and coordination. Ex. 6 at 55. However, he
“really d[idn’t] see any improvement” in pain level, prompting a pause from PT. Id. at 55.
Also in March 2020, an MRI revealed tendinosis, fraying of the bursal surface, a
small partial-thickness bursal surface tear of the supraspinatus, no labral tear, and a small
amount of subdeltoid subacromial fluid. Ex. 2 at 83; see also Ex. 9 at 65 (subsequent
PCP appointment). Between May 11 - 26, 2020, Petitioner attended four more PT
sessions. Ex. 6 at 29-44.
At his May 27, 2020, initial orthopedics evaluation, Petitioner reported that the pain
increased with overhead motion and cross-shoulder reaching. Ex. 3 at 1. The pain did not
awaken him from sleep. Id. PT had delivered “some relief.” Id. The orthopedist
documented “some tenderness on the right acromioclavicular joint,” positive
impingement, and full range of motion. Id. at 1-2. The orthopedist considered that the
vaccine may have aggravated a previously asymptomatic, chronic rotator cuff tear and
arthropathy. Id. Alternatively, the vaccine needle may have newly caused the rotator cuff
tear. Id. She discouraged a steroid injection on balance: it “would likely result in pain relief,
however, it may also result in compromised tissue to bone healing.” Id. She “did
recommend right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair if he has continued
symptoms, however, upon further discussions, he feels that PT has been helping him and
he is scheduled to undergo further PT sessions.” Id.; see also Ex. 7 at 1 (second X-ray of
the shoulder).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 8 of 10
Between May 29 – June 17, 2020, Petitioner attended five more PT sessions. Ex.
6 at 1-28. He also maintained a home exercise program (“HEP”) with weights. Id. at 23.
He reported diminishing and periodic soreness which was manageable with ibuprofen. Id.
at 18, 19, 21. He reported “doing well”: “At this point, I don’t think that I need a surgery.
Id. at 7. Upon discharge, he had “improved strength” and “minimal c/o [complaints of]
pain,” and would continue with the HEP. Id. at 5.
During an October 11, 2020, telehealth encounter, the PCP recorded: “[Petitioner]
has been attending 3 months of physical therapy with Janet Lee followed by a home
exercise program using a 5-pound dumbbell; he states the pain is manageable at the
moment and [he] may consider surgery in the future if this starts to become
unmanageable.” Ex. 9 at 271. The records of another telehealth encounter in August 2021
include the same information verbatim, with no changes or updates – raising potential
that the information was merely carried forward from the last record, rather than reflecting
any active complaint regarding Petitioner’s right shoulder that persisted up to August 2021
(or beyond). Ex. 11 at 39-40. Petitioner’s affidavits do not address his ongoing condition.
Exs. 8, 12. It is also noted that from September - November 2020, Petitioner attended 12
PT sessions to address neck strain and cervicalgia, but not his shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 9
at 297-98 (discharge summary).
B. Analysis
The evidence reflects a SIRVA that was mild overall. Mr. Brandt experienced the
onset of acute shoulder pain in October 2019, and he sought medical attention within
approximately two weeks. Imaging revealed moderate pathology including a rotator cuff
tear and arthropathy.
However, Petitioner underwent only conservative measures (ice, heat, ibuprofen,
and physical therapy). He consistently characterized the injury as soreness or fatigue,
and he never reported pain above 4/10. He experienced mildly limited range of motion
which was restored by PT (totaling 22 sessions over five months). His formal treatment
ended upon discharge from PT – eight months after vaccination, in June 2020. Beyond
that point, Petitioner may well have experienced some mild ongoing pain and continued
with the HEP, but that is not sufficiently corroborated to warrant an increase to the
damages award. As noted above, the October 2020 medical record includes only
Petitioner’s self-report of manageable pain, and that information appears to have been
merely carried over to the subsequent medical records in August 2021. And while
Petitioner received one recommendation of surgery, surgery was ultimately not required,
because the injury was otherwise manageable with conservative measures and resolving.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 9 of 10
Petitioner requests $100,000.00 for his actual pain and suffering. Brief at 9-10. He
avers that the pain and suffering resulting from his SIRVA is similar to that recognized in
Harper, Young, Cooper, Danielson, and Fry.11
Respondent emphasizes that Petitioner underwent a more limited course of
treatment when contrasted with the facts in such prior cases. Response at 8. Thus, the
Young petitioner underwent over 50 PT sessions, “speak[ing] to the severity of his injury.”
Young, 2019 WL 396981, at *6. And while Petitioner suggests that the Young treatment
course totaled just three months, the Young petitioner – who was himself a medical doctor
– initially self-treated with pain medications, steroids, and rest. Brief at 6; Young, 2019
WL 396981, at *2. That initial period should be counted as part of the treatment course.
Cooper and Danielson included significantly more treatment, over longer durations, than
the present case. Cooper, 2018 WL 6288181 at 12-13; Danielson, 2020 WL 8271642 at
*3-5.
Respondent also avers that a limited course of treatment may be explained by
unique circumstances (such as advanced age, comorbidities, or competing personal
obligations) which are not present in this case. Response at 8. For example, the Harper
petitioner did not undergo recommended treatments because of her concurrent
pregnancy and need to care for her newborn. Harper, 2021 WL 5231980, at *2-4.
Similarly, the Fry petitioner did not undergo surgery on her shoulder due to her advanced
age and multiple comorbidities. Fry, 2020 WL 8457671 at *7. I agree that Mr. Brandt did
not experience any similar obstacles to treatment.
Respondent proposes that Petitioner’s pain and suffering is instead, comparable
to what was recognized in Aponte, Dagen, Bartholomew, and George – supporting an
award of between $60,000.00 to $67,000.00. Id. at 7-10.12
11 Harper v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-020V, 2021 WL 5231980 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct.
8, 2021) (awarding $92,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Young v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 15-1241V, No. 15-1241V, 2019 WL 396981 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2019) ($100,000.00); Cooper
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1387V, 2018 WL 6288181 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018)
($110,000.00); Danielson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1878V, 2020 WL 8271642 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Dec. 29, 2020) ($110,000.00); Fry v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1091V, 2020 WL
8457671 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 16, 2020) ($120,000.00).
12 Aponte v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-1031V, 20-1031V, 2022 WL 4707180 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 2, 2022) (awarding $60,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Dagen v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 18-0442V, 2019 WL 7187335 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 6, 2019) ($65,000.00); Bartholomew
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1570V, 2020 WL 3639805 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2020)
($67,000.00); George v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0426V, 2020 WL 4692451 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 10, 2020) ($67,000.00).
9

Case 1:21-vv-00494-UNJ Document 53 Filed 03/11/24 Page 10 of 10
George, Bartholomew, Dagen, and Aponte all feature similar facts as Petitioner’s
case – as Petitioner himself seems to acknowledge. Reply at 4 (stating only “Both
Respondent’s and Petitioner’s cited cases include similar facts to Mr. Brandt’s case”)
(emphasis added). Overall, I find that Dagen offers the best comparison to the facts and
circumstances seen here. The Dagen petitioner presented for medical treatment
approximately two weeks after vaccination, and reported some difficulty with daily
activities and sleep. Dagen, 2019 WL 7187335 at *9. After approximately seven months
of treatment including 16 PT sessions, Ms. Dagen’s pain level, range of motion, and
strength had improved, and she was discharged with home exercises. Id.13 I find that
Petitioner should receive the same amount of compensation for her pain and suffering as
awarded in Dagen - $65,000.00.
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and the parties’ arguments, I award Petitioner a
lump sum payment of $65,730.38 (representing $65,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering,14 plus $730.38 for actual unreimbursed expenses).15 This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
13 I recognize that there appears to be more significant pathology visualized by MRI in Mr. Brandt’s case,
compared to Ms. Dagen. But conversely, Ms. Dagen’s receipt of both oral and injected steroids suggests
more significant early pain.
14 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)).
15 The parties have stipulated to the expenses. Brief at 2; Response at 5.
16 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.
10