VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00523
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00523
Petitioner: Tamela Sprigg
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2025-04-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-26
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 110000

AI-assisted case summary:
Tamela Sprigg, born in 1960, received an influenza vaccine on October 26, 2018. She alleged that this vaccination caused a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), which is a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. While she did not report immediate shoulder pain, she and her husband stated that she experienced an "immediate achiness" that she initially attributed to normal soreness. She was also the primary caregiver for her mother and mother-in-law, which may have contributed to a delay in seeking medical attention. Her first documented medical visit for shoulder pain occurred approximately 76 days after vaccination. The medical records showed severe pain, bursitis, tendinosis, and limited range of motion, leading to arthroscopic surgery and physical therapy. The parties initially disputed whether the onset of pain occurred within the 48-hour window required for a Table SIRVA claim. The Chief Special Master found that Petitioner had established entitlement to compensation, determining that her shoulder pain more likely than not began within 48 hours of vaccination. The case then proceeded to the damages phase. After settlement discussions failed, the parties briefed the damages issue. The court awarded Tamela Sprigg $110,000.00 for past pain and suffering. The award did not include compensation for later shoulder complaints, as the court found they were likely caused by an intervening event (over-reliance on the shoulder after knee surgery) rather than the original SIRVA.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00523-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-01-17
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/11/2023) regarding 41 Ruling on Entitlement, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0523V
TAMELA SPRIGG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: December 11, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Brian L. Cinelli, Marcus & Cinelli, LLP, Williamsville, NY, for Petitioner.
Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 11, 2021, Tamela Sprigg 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 as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received
on October 26, 2018, she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Petition (ECF No. 1). For
the following reasons, I find that Petitioner more likely than not began to experience left
shoulder pain less than forty-eight (48) hours after vaccination, and that she has
established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA. Accordingly, she is entitled to
compensation.
1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 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-00523-UNJ Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 8
I. Relevant Procedural History
The Petition was supported by affidavits from Ms. Sprigg and her husband
(assigned Exs. 1 – 2), and most of the required medical records (Exs. 3 – 15) (ECF No.
1).3 The Petition alleged shoulder pain beginning within 48 hours, even though that pain
was not documented during medical encounters for other complaints less than 20 days
post-vaccination. Petition at ¶¶ 4, 9 - 16.
On December 2, 2021, the case was activated and assigned to OSM’s Special
Processing Unit (“SPU”), which exists to resolve likely-to-settle claims (ECF No. 13).
Petitioner confirmed that her formal treatment course (which included arthroscopic
surgery and physical therapy) had concluded (ECF No. 24), and that she had conveyed
a demand for past pain and suffering plus past unreimbursable expenses (ECF Nos. 29
– 30). The parties explored settlement from February – July 2023, before reaching an
impasse (ECF Nos. 31 – 38). Accordingly, on September 15, 2023, Respondent filed his
Rule 4(c) report, in which he opposes compensation of the SIRVA claim on the grounds
that there is not preponderant evidence of onset within 48 hours, as required by the Table.
Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 39) at 6.
Upon reviewing the case file, I have determined that the parties’ respective
positions regarding onset – and entitlement for the Table SIRVA more generally – are
sufficiently developed and therefore ripe for adjudication.
II. Relevant Evidence
I have reviewed all submitted evidence including all medical records, affidavits, the
Petition, and the Rule 4(c) Report. I will only summarize or discuss evidence that directly
pertain to the determinations herein.
Petitioner was born in 1960. Her pre-vaccination medical history did not include
any left shoulder pain, issues, or abnormalities. See generally Ex. 16 – 18 (Geisinger
Medical Center, including primary care); see also Ex 1 (Petitioner’s affidavit) at ¶ 4. She
pre-scheduled the October 26, 2018, appointment at a Geisinger “flu shot clinic.” Ex. 16
at 1221, 1243, 1250. A licensed practical nurse recorded the administration of the vaccine
into Petitioner’s left deltoid muscle. Ex. 19 at 1.
Fifteen (15) days after vaccination, on November 10, 2018, Petitioner presented
to an Evangelical Community Hospital urgent care facility for a sudden onset of left ankle
pain rated at 8/10, with no known injury. Ex. 7 at 1. A musculoskeletal exam of the left
3 Additional medical records were filed later as Exs. 16 – 21 (ECF Nos. 8, 22, 27).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 3 of 8
ankle documented swelling, tenderness, and pain with weightbearing. Id. at 2. An x-ray
of the left ankle was unremarkable. Id. at 3. Petitioner was instructed to immobilize and
rest the ankle, and take acetaminophen or ibuprofen for pain, and follow up if necessary.
Id. at 2. However, no complaints, exam findings, or assessment of the left shoulder are
documented.
A few days later, on November 14, 2018, Petitioner presented to her established
primary care provider (“PCP”), Pedro O. Servano, III, M.D., within the Geisinger health
system. Ex. 16 at 1291. She reported a one-week history of worsening anxiety, in the
context of being “the sole caretaker of a frail and sick mother,” for which Dr. Servano
recommended taking buspirone twice daily. Id. at 1291-92. They also discussed chronic
low back pain, for which Dr. Servano said that she could take oxycodone-acetaminophen
as needed. Ex. 16 at 1291, 1293. Again, no complaints, exam findings, or assessment of
the left shoulder are documented. Id.
The next record is from January 4, 2019, when Petitioner secured an appointment
with Dr. Servano to address “severe pain in my left shoulder ever since I got a flu shot in
October.” Ex. 16 at 1318. At the appointment, Dr. Servano observed tenderness at the
left acromioclavicular, rotator, and scapulohumeral joints. Ex. 16 at 1304. Dr. Servano felt
the complaints were “not related to the shot since there was no deltoid tenderness where
the shot was given,” Id. But he also noted that Petitioner’s obesity was an obstacle to the
physical exam, and he did not document her range of motion (“ROM”). Id. His impression
was rotator cuff syndrome and bursitis, for which he prescribed prednisone. Id.
Dr. Servano also obtained an MRI on January 17, 2019, and it showed potential
subacromial and sub-deltoid bursitis; mild to moderate AC joint osteoarthrosis; and rotator
cuff tendinosis. Ex. 16 at 1312-13. The next day, Dr. Servano reviewed the findings and
entered a referral to orthopedics. Id. at 1329.
At a February 26, 2019, initial evaluation, orthopedist John Furia, M.D., recorded
Petitioner’s history of left shoulder pain “since October 2018… correlat[ing] to her having
flu shot.” Ex. 6 at 1. Since that time, her shoulder had been weak and sore, with no
improvement despite attempts at rest, activity modification, NSAIDs, and a home exercise
program. Id. She had pain with lifting, reaching, sleeping, and turning the steering wheel.
Id. On physical exam of the left shoulder, the findings included mild pain with resisted
external rotation; positive Neers and Hawkins test; and tenderness at the level of the
subacromial space. Id. After reviewing the MRI, Dr. Furia assessed Petitioner with
tendinitis, for which he administered a steroid injection and entered a referral to physical
therapy (“PT”). Id.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 8
At the March 15, 2019, PT initial evaluation, Petitioner reported that her left
shoulder pain’s onset was on October 26, 2018, and had been caused by the vaccination.
Ex. 7 at 4. She denied any prior injuries to her left shoulder. Id. The steroid injection had
“slightly decreased her pain.” Id. On exam, she had markedly reduced ROM and
weakness. Id. at 5. Petitioner was discharged with instructions to use a TENS/NMES unit
and to continue her home exercise program. Id. at 5 – 6.
A follow-up appointment occurred a few days later (on March 19, 2019), at which
time Dr. Furia recorded that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain was still painful with lifting,
reaching, and sleeping. Ex. 6 at 4. He discussed the options for further treatment. Id.
Subsequently on April 12, 2019, Petitioner underwent an arthroscopic subacromial
decompression, rotator cuff repair, distal clavicle resection, and labral tear debridement
performed by Dr. Furia. Ex. 7 at 38 – 40.
At the April 22, 2019, post-operative PT initial evaluation, Petitioner’s pain rating
was currently 5/10 and ranged from 3 – 9/10. Ex. 7 at 99. The surgical incisions were
healing well with no signs of infection. Id. at 100. Her active ROM could not be tested, but
passive ROM was reduced. Id. The therapist planned a course of formal PT sessions
twice a week for six weeks, plus use of the TENS unit at home. Ex. 7 at 101; see also Ex.
6 at 8-9 (post-operative orthopedics follow-up appointment later that day, noting that
Petitioner’s use of a sling).
On June 25, 2019, after 14 post-operative PT sessions, Petitioner was discharged.
Ex. 7 at 102 - 28. Her pain had decreased to 0/10 currently, and 3/10 at worst. Id. at 127.
Her ROM was improved to within normal limits, and she had met all goals. Id. at 128. She
“still ha[d] minor problems with flexibility and strength, but was assured that this will
continue to improve over the next several months as long as she continues her HEP.” Id.
at 127.
At a July 1, 2019, follow-up, Petitioner reported that she was “doing great.” Ex. 6
at 11. Dr. Furia documented full active and passive ROM and negative Neers and
Hawkins tests. Id. Dr. Furia assessed that she was “recovered” from her shoulder injury,
but she could return if there were any significant problems or concerns. Id.
In her January 2021 affidavit, Petitioner recalls that as of October 2018 she was
retired and serving as the primary caregiver for her mother and mother-in-law, who both
lived in her home. Ex. 1 at ¶ 3. She recalls that the vaccine administrator was standing
and she was sitting, and that the vaccine was given higher up on her shoulder than usual.
Id. at ¶ 5. Upon vaccination, she felt an “immediate achiness,” but she hoped that was
“just normal soreness,” even around the time of her medical encounters for other
complaints about two weeks post-vaccination. Id. at ¶¶ 6 – 7. She attempted to manage
4

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 5 of 8
the pain with Tylenol and ibuprofen. Id. at ¶ 8. “After about the third week, when the pain
in [her] shoulder seemed to be increasing rather than decreasing, [she] began to suspect
that something was wrong,” but she was focused on her increasing responsibilities as the
primary caregiver for her mother and mother-in-law. Id. Eventually, she managed to
schedule the January 10, 2019, appointment with her PCP. Id. at ¶¶ 9 – 10.
In his own January 2021 affidavit, Petitioner’s husband Mark Sprigg recalls that
she complained of shoulder pain beginning on the evening of October 26, 2018 – which
was memorable, because she “ha[d] a high threshold for pain and never really
complained.” Ex. 2 at ¶ 5. Mr. Sprigg recalls these events in the context of Petitioner’s
mother recently moving into their home in September 2018, and his own mother’s
worsening dementia and Alzheimer’s disease around the same time. Id. at ¶ 9.
III. Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 6 of 8
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g., tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a
neurological injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve
conduction studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would
not support SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the
neurological abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be
considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the
following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 7 of 8
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g., NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017).
B. Analysis
The parties’ only dispute is whether Petitioner experienced the onset of left
shoulder pain within forty-eight (48) hours after the October 26, 2018, flu vaccination. 42
C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), (c)(10)(ii).
Respondent avers that there is not preponderant evidence of that factual
requirement because Petitioner’s first memorialized report of left shoulder pain occurred
76 days after vaccination, despite earlier urgent care and PCP encounters focused on
other complaints. Rule 4(c) Report at 6. But those encounters happened less than 20
days after the vaccination, when (as maintained in witness statements) Petitioner and her
husband hoped that she was experiencing “just normal soreness” that would subside.
Petitioner and her husband also allege that caregiving responsibilities and the December
holidays help to explain the subsequent delay in treatment. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 6 – 7; Ex. 2 at ¶¶
4 – 10.
This explanation is straightforward, and not contradicted by the subsequent
medical records – in which the same PCP, and other providers, documented Petitioner’s
consistent history originating with the vaccination. See e.g., Ex. 16 at 1318; Ex. 6 at 1;
Ex. 7 at 4. Additionally, there is not evidence to support an onset either before vaccination
or at any specific point beyond the Table timeframe.5 I thus find preponderant evidence
that Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not began within 48 hours after the
subject vaccination. (At most, the delay in formal recordation of pain might bear on pain
and suffering, since it is evidence that Petitioner was able to live with her initial pain.)
5 For all of these reasons, Petitioner’s case is easily distinguishable from the case cited by Respondent.
Rule 4(c) Report at 6 (citing Gruszka v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1736V, 2022 WL 3024777
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 7, 2022) for the proposition that there was “no preponderant evidence of onset
within 48 hours partly bases on intervening visits to an orthopedist where Petitioner did not report shoulder
pain.” In Gruszka, Special Master Horner discussed numerous reasons why the petitioner’s onset allegation
was unpersuasive – including a prior history of shoulder pain, inconsistent later reporting to medical
providers, and unpersuasive live testimony. 2022 WL 3024777 at *13 – 17.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 42 Filed 01/17/24 Page 8 of 8
Respondent does not raise any other objections to entitlement (see generally Rule
4(c) Report), and based on my independent review, I find that Petitioner has
preponderantly established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(i, iii – iv). Accordingly, she need not prove causation-in-fact. Section
11(c)(1)(C). I also find that Petitioner has satisfied all other requirements of Section 11(c)
including a sufficiently severe injury, and the lack of other award or settlement. Section
11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Petitioner has established entitlement
and is thus entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA following the October 26,
2018, flu vaccine.
Therefore, the case is now formally in the damages phase. The parties are
instructed to return to their efforts at informal resolution. I will however note that
Petitioner’s compensable treatment course included one x-ray, one MRI, one steroid
injection, arthroscopic surgery, and PT – however, she achieved significant improvement
and was assessed as “recovered” as of July 2019. But the January 2021 Petition did not
allege significant ongoing residuals, and it is far from clear that the left shoulder
complaints beginning in or around April 2022 (summarized in the Rule 4(c) Report at 4 –
5) should be included in the compensable damages.
Within 45 days, by no later than Friday, January 26, 2024, Petitioner shall file
a Joint Status Report updating on the parties’ efforts towards informally resolving
damages. If the parties have reached an impasse, the status report shall propose a
schedule for either sequential or simultaneous briefing of their respective
positions on damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00523-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-08
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/05/2025) regarding 52 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/08/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0523V
TAMELA SPRIGG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: March 5, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Brian L. Cinelli, Marcus & Cinelli, LLP, Williamsville, NY, for Petitioner.
Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Tamela Sprigg 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 as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received
on October 26, 2018, she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”). Petition (ECF No. 1).
In December 2023, I resolved entitlement in Petitioner’s favor, and directed the
parties to seek agreement on an appropriate damages award – but one which might not
encompass Petitioner’s post-surgery subsequent complaints. Ruling on Entitlement (ECF
No. 41), available at Sprigg v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-523V, 2023 WL
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-00523-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/08/25 Page 2 of 7
9288067 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 11, 2023) (the “Entitlement Ruling”). That ruling –
including the summary of the previous procedural history, and the underlying evidence –
is fully incorporated and relied upon herein.
The parties’ damages discussions reached an impasse in April 2024, and they
have now briefed the issue. Damages Brief filed June 3, 2024 (ECF No. 47); Response
filed July 9, 2024 (ECF No. 49); Reply filed July 24, 2024 (ECF No. 50). The matter is
now ripe for adjudication.
For the following reasons, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation
in the form of a lump sum payment of $110,000.00 (for past pain and suffering).
I. Authority
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining SIRVA damages, taking into account prior compensation
determinations within SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in
Section II of Yodowitz v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-370V, 2024 WL 4284926,
at *2 – 3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 23, 2024).
In sum, 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). 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). 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.3
II. 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 her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
3 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (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)).
2

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/08/25 Page 3 of 7
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 both SPU and
non-SPU SIRVA cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However,
I base my determination on the circumstances of this case.
The evidence has already been discussed in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, the
parties’ briefing, and the Entitlement Ruling. As the record establishes, Petitioner Tamela
Sprigg was born in 1960. She was retired, but caring for her mother and her mother-in-
law, who were both living in her home. Ex. 1 – Petitioner’s Affidavit at ¶¶ 3, 8; see also
Ex. 2 – Husband’s Affidavit at ¶ 9 (recalling that in or around September 2018, one mother
joined their household, and the other’s health worsened). She had no history of shoulder
pain or dysfunction upon receiving the at-issue flu vaccine in her left deltoid on October
26, 2018. Ex. 19 at 1.
Petitioner was not documented to have any complaints or findings of a shoulder
injury at two subsequent medical appointments. Specifically, she obtained an urgent care
evaluation of a new left ankle injury (with a pain rating of 8/10) on November 10, 2018,
Ex. 7 at 1 – 2; and discussed mental health concerns related to her caregiving
responsibilities, plus low back pain with her primary care provider (“PCP”) on November
14, 2018, Ex. 16 at 1291 – 93.
As I previously noted: “[t]hose encounters happened less than 20 days after the
vaccination, when (as maintained in witness statements) Petitioner and her husband
hoped that she was experiencing “just normal soreness” that would subside. Petitioner
and her husband also allege that caregiving responsibilities and the December holidays
help to explain the subsequent delay in treatment. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 6 – 7; Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 4 – 10.”
Sprigg, 2023 WL 9288067 at *5. Nevertheless, those two intervening encounters
demonstrate that Petitioner could have sought medical treatment for her shoulder injury
earlier than she actually did (76 days post-vaccination, with the same PCP),4 and that she
was able to manage her condition secondary to her other medical concerns. See, e.g.,
Ex. 16 at 1291 – 93 and Ex. 8 at 2 (reflecting that the PCP prescribed oxycodone-
acetaminophen for her low back pain after the November 14th encounter).
4 Petitioner recalls that the primary care practice could not schedule an evaluation of her shoulder for
several weeks. Ex. 1 at ¶ 10. However, even accounting for the scheduling delay, Petitioner only contacted
the primary care office “sometime in December 2018,” id. at ¶ 9, which was at least five weeks after the
vaccination and accepted onset of the injury.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/08/25 Page 4 of 7
However, once Petitioner sought treatment for her shoulder injury, her condition
was documented to be moderately severe and resistant to conservative treatment. See,
e.g., Ex. 16 at 1304 – 05, 1318 (January 4, 2019 PCP evaluation of “severe” shoulder
pain, prompting a new prescription for prednisone); id. at 1320 (January 16, 2019,
renewed prescription of oxycodone-acetaminophen, not specifying the condition to be
treated); Ex. 16 at 1312 – 13 (January 17, 2019 MRI findings of subacromial and sub-
deltoid bursitis; mild to moderate AC joint osteoarthrosis; and rotator cuff tendinosis); Ex.
6 at 1 – 3 (February 26, 2019 orthopedics initial evaluation, steroid injection, and
suggestion of surgery); Ex. 7 at 4 – 5 (March 15, 2019 PT initial evaluation, recording that
the steroid injection had only “slightly decreased her pain,” which currently ranged from 4
– 10/10; exam findings of reduced range of motion; and recommendations of home
exercise and a TENS/NMES unit); Ex. 6 at 4 – 7 (March 19, 2019, orthopedics follow-up,
recording Petitioner’s improvement with conservative measures and their decision to
proceed to surgical intervention).
Eventually, in April 2019, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery featuring
subacromial decompression, rotator cuff repair, distal clavicle resection, and labral tear
debridement. Ex. 7 at 38 – 40. She was discharged with a sling, and a new prescription
for hydrocodone-acetaminophen. Ex. 7 at 5, 77, 80; Ex. 8 at 2.
Petitioner’s post-surgical recovery was not immediate. Although Respondent
emphasizes an April 22, 2019 orthopedics follow-up record suggesting that Petitioner’s
pain was “minimal,” that record is not obviously accurate – for instance, suggesting that
she was already “making good steady progress in PT.” Ex. 6 at 8 – 9. In fact, the first
post-operative PT record is from earlier that same day – and it reflects pain ranging from
3 – 9/10, and the therapist’s concern about “high pain levels at rest.” Ex. 7 at 99 – 101.
And over one month later on May 30, 2019, Petitioner reported shoulder pain ranging
from 1 – 9/10. Id. at 102.5
But Petitioner did later make good progress, with 14 total post-operative PT
sessions, and she was discharged on June 25, 2019. Ex. 7 at 102 - 28. Her pain had
decreased to 0/10 currently, and 3/10 at worst. Id. at 127. By that point her ROM was
improved to within normal limits, and she had met all of her goals. Id. at 128. She “still
ha[d] minor problems with flexibility and strength but was assured that this will continue
to improve over the next several months as long as she continues her HEP.” Id. at 127.
5 Petitioner states that she was prescribed gabapentin to address her shoulder pain in May 2019. Ex. 1 at
¶ 11; Ex. 8 at 2 – 3. But there is not preponderant evidence to support that recollection, because the
gabapentin was prescribed for a “mix” of complaints, the “biggest” being her chronic, unrelated “neuropathic
back pain.” Ex. 17 at 266, 268.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/08/25 Page 5 of 7
Similarly at a July 1, 2019, orthopedics follow-up, Petitioner reported that she was
“doing great.” Ex. 6 at 11. She had full active and passive ROM and negative Neers and
Hawkins tests. Id. The orthopedist assessed Petitioner to have “recovered from this injury”
and required no restrictions. Id. The orthopedist noted that Petitioner could return if
additional problems or concerns arose, id., but that did not occur for nearly two years (as
discussed further below).
In a January 2021 affidavit, Petitioner confirmed that her shoulder was at least
“significantly improved, although [she] still experience[d] periodic pain and soreness in
[her] shoulder depending on [her] activity level.” Ex. 1 at ¶ 15; see also Ex. 2 at 12 – 13
¶¶ (stating that Petitioner’s shoulder was “improved significantly” but “not back completely
to the way it was before”).
The above evidence establishes that Petitioner’s left-sided SIRVA was
moderately severe for roughly eight months (from the October 26, 2018 vaccination
to her July 1, 2019, discontinuation of treatment). That injury was manageable during
an initial 76-day treatment delay, but nonetheless severe enough to warrant a prompt
prescription for prednisone, an MRI, a steroid injection, an initial PT evaluation, and
surgical intervention. However, the surgery and 15 total PT sessions delivered a
substantial if not complete recovery by eight months post-vaccination – July 1, 2019.
Throughout this acute period, Petitioner had difficulty fulfilling her personal obligations,
specifically caring for two aging family members who were living in her home.
For those reasons, Respondent’s pain and suffering valuation of just $67,500.00
is too low. Response at 1. Such a figure would be significantly below the “baseline six-
figure ‘yardstick’ [for] SIRVA pain and suffering demands in cases involving surgery.”
Reply at 4.6, 7 And Respondent does not fully account for Petitioner’s high pain levels, and
her relative lack of relief from the steroid injection, PT consultation, home exercises, and
use of a TENS unit in the months before her surgery. Petitioner’s pain and suffering was
certainly more severe than that of the petitioner in Respondent’s only cited case, Hunt.
Response at 6 – 7.8 Although the Hunt petitioner’s multiple steroid injections were
invasive, they also delivered periods of “little to no pain,” Hunt, 2022 WL 2826662, at *2
6 Quoting Dezurik v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1357V, 2022 WL 5419845, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 6, 2022) (awarding $105,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
.
7 Respondent’s $67,500.00 valuation is also well below the median – at roughly the first quartile - of all
(surgical and non-surgical) SIRVA pain and suffering awards resolved by special masters. Yodowitz, 2024
WL 4284926, at *3
8 Citing Hunt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
June 16, 2022) (awarding $95,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/08/25 Page 6 of 7
– 3, 8; compared to the nearly six months of persistent pain prior to surgery seen in this
case. Additionally, Hunt did not feature the disruptions to caregiving obligations
established in this case, or similarly compelling circumstances.
Petitioner’s request for a past pain and suffering award of $120,000.00, by
contrast, is more appropriate. Brief at 9. Most instructive is her reliance on Vaccaro, Reply
at 4.9 That case’s 93-day initial treatment delay without any intervening encounters is
roughly equivalent to this case’s 70-day initial treatment delay with two intervening
encounters and extenuating personal circumstances. Vaccaro also featured one steroid
injection that was largely ineffective, surgical intervention and about three months of PT,
followed by substantial recovery and discontinuation of treatment. 2022 WL 662550, at
*4 – 5. The Vaccaro opinion also relied in part on similar past awards in Collado and
Knudson. 2022 WL 662550, at *5; accord Brief at 10 – 12; Reply at 2 – 3.10
However, Petitioner’s demand of $120,000.00 is also based in part on the view
that the pain and suffering award in this case should take into account her later left-
shoulder complaints, which resulted in additional PT and surgery. She argues that this
was a “reinjury” resulting from a “recurrent tear of the rotator cuff,” which “may be related
to the original vaccination injury and should be considered to some extent in assessing
damages.” Brief at 7.
Petitioner’s contention about this later treatment phase is unpersuasive. The
record reveals that after a nearly two-year gap in medical record documentation,
Petitioner was documented in spring 2021 to have a distinctly different injury of not only
left shoulder pain, but numbness and tingling extending through her am, forearm, and
fingers. Ex. 20 at 150. Her orthopedist did not draw any connection to her 2018-19
shoulder injury, instead opining that the present “discomfort is coming more from her neck
and not the shoulder.” Id. Similarly the spring 2021 PT records reflect a diagnosis of
cervicalgia. Id. at 146.
Afterwards (starting in early 2022), Petitioner was documented to have an injury
limited to the shoulder’s musculoskeletal structures, with both MRI and surgical findings
of a “recurrent” rotator cuff tear. Ex. 20 at 41, 73 – 74. But again, this medical complaint
began two and one-half years after the SIRVA was assessed as “recover[ed],” Ex. 6 at
11, and her treaters did not connect the two complaints – instead emphasizing an
9 Vaccaro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1883V, 2022 WL 662550 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 2,
2022) (awarding $110,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
10 Citing Collado v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-552V, 2018 WL 3433352 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
June 6, 2018) (awarding $120,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Knudson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 17-1004V, 2018 WL 6293381 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) ($110,000.00).
6

Case 1:21-vv-00523-UNJ Document 56 Filed 04/08/25 Page 7 of 7
intervening and unrelated cause. Specifically, Petitioner acknowledged that after
undergoing a knee replacement in November 2021, she over-relied on her left shoulder
while walking with a cane, developing new left shoulder pain in about January 2022. See,
e.g., Ex. 20 at 41, 80, 92, 141 – 42.
A SIRVA is thought to involve the “unintended injection of vaccine antigen or
trauma from the needle into and around the underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in
an inflammatory reaction.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). But it is far from established that a
SIRVA will lead to inflammation persisting for several years after, or a greater risk of
reinjury by later unrelated causes. Thus, even if Petitioner sincerely believes that her
SIRVA has some connection to her complaints over two years later, there is not
preponderant evidence to support that conclusion. See Meagher v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 18-1572V, 2023 WL 8713607, at *12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 17,
2023), citing James-Cornelius v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 984 F.3d 1374, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that “lay opinions as to causation or medical diagnosis may
be properly categorized as mere ‘subjective belief’ when the witness is not competent to
testify on those subjects”).
For the foregoing reasons, I will award slightly less than Petitioner requests – in
line with the Vaccaro case, $110,000.00 for past pain and suffering.
Conclusion
For all the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the entire
record, Petitioner is entitled to damages in the form of a lump sum payment of
$110,000.00 (for past pain and suffering), to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner.
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.11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11 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.
7