VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00583
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00583
Petitioner: Holly Havis
Filed: 2021-02-12
Decided: 2024-12-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-04
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 76382

AI-assisted case summary:
Holly Havis filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 12, 2021, alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 4, 2019, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Ms. Havis was 62 years old at the time of vaccination. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded entitlement to compensation, agreeing that Ms. Havis met the criteria for a SIRVA Table injury, had filed her case timely, received the vaccine in the United States, and suffered residual effects for more than six months. The case then proceeded to a damages determination. Ms. Havis reported left shoulder pain and reduced range of motion within 48 hours of the vaccination. Medical records documented ongoing pain, tenderness, a lump at the injection site, and an MRI suggesting bursitis, tendinopathy, partial tearing, and a SLAP lesion. Her treatment included pain medication, a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection, and seven physical therapy sessions, along with a home exercise program. Ms. Havis also contended that she injured her right arm due to overreliance while treating her left shoulder, but the court found insufficient evidence to link these two injuries. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or name the experts consulted. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the parties' arguments regarding damages. Ms. Havis sought $135,000.00 for past pain and suffering, arguing her injury persisted until early 2021 and significantly impacted her ability to perform and teach music. The respondent proposed an award of $50,000.00, viewing the treatment as conservative and disputing the connection to the right arm injury. Chief Special Master Corcoran found that while Ms. Havis's left SIRVA caused significant functional limitations and impacted her ability to teach music during the acute treatment period, her injury substantially improved by ten months post-vaccination. He noted that her condition was not as severe or persistent as in prior cases that received higher awards, and that the right arm injury was not sufficiently linked. The Chief Special Master awarded Ms. Havis $75,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,382.13 for unreimbursable expenses, for a total award of $76,382.13. The decision was issued on December 6, 2024.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Holly Havis, age 62, received an influenza vaccine on October 4, 2019, and subsequently developed a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the injury met the criteria for a SIRVA Table injury. The parties were unable to resolve damages informally, leading to a decision by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. Petitioner argued for $135,000 for pain and suffering, citing left shoulder pain, reduced range of motion, MRI findings of bursitis, tendinopathy, partial tearing, and a SLAP lesion, along with an inability to perform and teach music. She also alleged a secondary injury to her right arm due to overreliance, but this was not substantiated by preponderant evidence. Respondent proposed $50,000, viewing the treatment as conservative and disputing the right arm injury link. Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded $75,000 for pain and suffering and $1,382.13 for unreimbursable expenses, totaling $76,382.13. The award considered the severity and duration of the left SIRVA, the conservative treatment course, and substantial recovery by ten months post-vaccination, while finding the right arm injury claim unsupported. The decision was issued on December 6, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00583-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/21/2022) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ke) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00583-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0583V
UNPUBLISHED
HOLLY HAVIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 21, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU);
HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 12, 2021, Holly Havis 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 that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine
received on October 4, 2019, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 19, 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 agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the 6-
7Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
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-00583-UNJ Document 37 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 2
(“QAI”) for a flu/ SIRVA Table injury. Id. at 4-5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B): (10)(i-
iv)). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner timely filed her case, that she received the
flu vaccination in the United States, and that she has satisfied the statutory severity
requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than
six months after vaccine administration. Id. at 5 (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-00583-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-06
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/01/2024) regarding 71 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No 21-0583V
HOLLY HAVIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: November 1, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 12, 2021, Holly Havis filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, following her receipt of an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on October 4, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. After Respondent conceded entitlement,
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-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 9
the parties were unable to informally resolve damages, and submitted that subject for my
resolution.3
For the following reasons, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation
in the form of a lump sum payment of $76,382.13 (representing $75,000.00 for actual
pain and suffering, plus $1,382.13 for actual unreimbursable expenses).
I. Authority
In another recent decision, I reviewed the legal standard to be considered in
determining damages, and how to properly evaluate prior SIRVA 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 *12-22 (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.4
II. Pain and Suffering
A. The Parties’ Arguments
In seeking $135,000.00 for her past pain and suffering, Petitioner notes that her
left-sided SIRVA featured pain ratings of 4 – 9/10, plus reduced range of motion (“ROM”);
an assessment of adhesive capsulitis; and required treatment with Tramadol, Lidoderm
patches, and a platelet-rich plasma (“PRP”) injection, while also resulting in an MRI
3 Respondent conceded entitlement of Petitioner’s left SIRVA in a Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 34) and I
accordingly issued a corresponding Ruling (ECF No. 35) in July 2022. The parties’ efforts to informally
resolve damages hit an impasse in April 2023, see Status Report (ECF No. 53). They subsequently briefed
damages. Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling on the Record on Damages filed Aug. 16, 2023 (ECF No. 61)
(hereinafter “Brief”), Respondent’s Response filed October 23, 2023 (ECF No. 63); Petitioner’s Reply filed
Nov. 21, 2023 (ECF No. 65). The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
4 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-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 9
visualizing tendinopathy, bursitis, partial tearing, and a SLAP lesion. She was evaluated
by urgent care, primary care, and orthopedic providers, and attended seven physical
therapy (“PT”) sessions. Brief at 15 – 16. Petitioner contends that her SIRVA persisted
until at least early 2021. Brief at 16 and Reply at 5 (internal citations omitted); see also
Reply at 4 (“the evidence is clear that Petitioner suffered with pain and dysfunction for at
least 15 months”).
Petitioner also contends that “while treating for” her left SIRVA, she overly relied
upon, and thereby injured, her right arm. Brief at 9; see also id. at 16; Reply at 3 – 4. Her
primary care physician (“PCP”) endorsed a connection between the two injuries, and she
therefore argues that the right-sided injury (with a treatment course including formal PT
and surgical intervention) should be factored into her SIRVA damage award. Brief at 16;
Reply at 3 – 4. Petitioner further states that that “while she was seeking treatment for” her
left SIRVA, she was unable to perform and teach music (her means of generating
income). Reply at 3. Therefore, those activities could not have caused her right-sided
injury. Id. Overall, Petitioner contends that her pain and suffering was similar – but greater
than – what was established in Leslie and Cooper. Id. at 19 – 20.5
Respondent proffers a lesser award of $50,000.00, based on his view that
Petitioner’s left SIRVA was treated “conservative[ly],” with a course ending in August
2020. Response at 19 and n. 3. Respondent also disputes any connection to the
subsequently-documented right arm injury. Id. at 14 – 18, citing Osenbach v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0419V, 2023 WL 5714809, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug.
8, 2023) (“It is axiomatically the case in the Program that not all post-vaccination injuries
are vaccine-caused”). He contends that Leslie and Cooper are factually “inapposite”
(without elaboration), and instead, that Ramos and Merwitz are “more instructive” to the
pain and suffering valuation. Id. at 20.6
B. 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 to her mental faculties or
capacity. I therefore analyze principally the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury. In
5 Leslie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0039V, 2021 WL 837139 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 28,
2021) (awarding $125,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Cooper v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
16-1387V, 2018 WL 6288181 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) ($110,000.00).
6 Merwitz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1141V, 2022 WL 17820768 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov.
14, 2022) (awarding $50,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Ramos v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
18-1005V, 2021 WL 688576 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2021) ($40,000.00).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 4 of 9
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 I rely upon my experience adjudicating these
cases. However, I base my ultimate determination on the specific circumstances here.
A thorough review of the evidence reveals that Ms. Havis received the at-issue flu
vaccine in her left deltoid during a primary care encounter on October 4, 2019. Ex. 11 at
19 – 25. She was then 62 years old, and her medical history included chronic fatigue,
insomnia, migraine headaches, and short-term memory issues. Id. at 21, 23 – 24; see
also, e.g., Ex. 3 at 6. She also had a several-decade history of low back pain, for which
she was prescribed Tramadol 50mg in August 2019. Ex. 12 at 27 – 30.
Petitioner developed left shoulder pain within 48 hours post-vaccination (a required
fact in any Table SIRVA claim). Fourteen (14) days post-vaccination, on October 18,
2019, at an urgent care, she reported persistent “sore[ness],” was observed to have an
injection site “lump” and tenderness to palpation, and she agreed to try managing the pain
with ice and ibuprofen. Ex. 14 at 2 – 6. Three subsequent medical encounters
documented ongoing pain, plus objectively reduced range of motion – but no formal
treatment measures. Ex. 10 at 101 – 111; Ex. 12 at 12 – 17;7 Ex. 11 at 14– 19. A January
14, 2020, MRI suggested bursitis, tendinopathy, partial tearing, degenerative changes,
and a SLAP lesion. Ex. 15 at 16.
On February 4, 2020, the PCP documented Petitioner’s ongoing left shoulder injury
which was causing “persistent functional limitations… She is unable to play her piano
which is causing financial difficulties, as she teaches piano lessons now for a living.” Ex.
11 at 12. The PCP’s exam found “tenderness over the left shoulder/ deltoid and elbow.
Patient only able to raise the L arm about 10 – 15 degrees due to shoulder pain. Only
able to flex the elbow to 90 degrees. No crepitus, swelling, or other deformity.” Id.
The first orthopedist who evaluated Petitioner’s shoulder, in mid-February 2020,
dismissed her concerns that her injury could have been caused by a vaccination. Ex. 15
at 3 – 5. She promptly established care with a different orthopedics practice, where she
was documented to have a pain rating of 6/10 despite “doubling up” the dose of Tramadol
(prescribed for her preexisting back issues) and applying Lidoderm patches. Ex. 16 at 7
– 14. Then in March 2020, she received a PRP injection. Id. at 9 - 10.
7 Petitioner notes that at this December 17, 2019, pain management encounter, she reported taking
“Tramadol 50 mg 1 – 2 PO TID, which was working well for her pain overall.” Ex. 12 at 12; see also Brief at
14. But she was taking the same amount of Tramadol three months earlier (pre-vaccination) for her chronic
low back pain. Ex. 12 at 17.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 5 of 9
Between April 2 – May 14, 2020, Petitioner attended seven formal PT sessions.
See generally Ex. 7 at 103 – 116. She initially rated her pain as currently/ at best 2/10,
but at worst 9/10 (associated with lying on her left side, and activity such as playing
instruments). Id. at 105. She was instructed on a home exercise program (“HEP”) and
also encouraged to “return to instrument play in order to help rehab potential/ progression.
Id. at 113. The last PT record summarizes Petitioner had achieved “steady improvement”
over time, with good active ROM (150 degrees flexion, 90 degrees abduction), external
rotation strength of 4+/5, but general weakness. Id. at 117. Petitioner was told to continue
a “narrowed” HEP, and return for additional formal PT as needed. Id.
At a June 2, 2020, orthopedics follow-up, Petitioner reported “some functional
limitations in the use of her [left] arm,” and that “certain arm movements” resulted in 2/10
pain of 2/10, but she was not taking any pain medication. Ex. 16 at 5. She reported
“decent progress” with formal PT, but discontinued because “the expense is too great.”
Id. at 6.8 The orthopedist exhorted Petitioner to continue her HEP, and to consider
periodic reevaluations with the physical therapist “to help with accountability.” Id. PT was
“the single best thing [Petitioner] can do to help return to her normal activities of playing
the piano and bass without pain.” Id. At the final orthopedics follow-up on August 6, 2020
(conducted via telemedicine), Petitioner demonstrated “full painless elevation and
external rotation… waving her arm above her head without pain!” Ex. 22 at 6. She also
reported “doing pushups several times a week without issues.” Id. Petitioner and the
orthopedist were “quite pleased with how well her [left] shoulder was doing” – but she
would continue “strengthening her RTC [rotator cuff] and upper body in general,” utilize
conservative pain measures, and follow up as needed. Id.
Petitioner never thereafter received medical attention for her left shoulder,9 despite
numerous encounters for other concerns10 - even eight months later, when she began
seeking medical attention for a new right-sided injury (eventually necessitating over 25
PT sessions, electrodiagnostic studies, and cubital tunnel release surgery). But those
records are insufficient to relate back to the prior SIRVA. For instance, on April 30, 2021,
when first reporting her right-sided injury, Petitioner described “having to sleep on her
8 Petitioner has documented paying $20.00 out of pocket for each formal PT session. Ex. 32 at 1.
9 It is also noted that the February 4, 2020, PCP encounter’s physical examination, history of present illness,
and assessment of the left shoulder appears to have been carried forward within the electronic medical
records to subsequent dates in 2020 and 2021.Compare Ex. 11 at 8 – 14; id. at 2 – 8; Ex. 23 at 2 – 8.
Accordingly, these PCP records are not strong evidence of the ongoing condition of Petitioner’s left
shoulder.
10 See, e.g., Ex. 23 at 2 (chief complaint of more frequent migraines); id. at 16 (abdominal pain and skin
problem/ rash); id. at 24 (short-term memory concerns); Ex. 34 at 19, 15, 9, 3 (organized chronologically)
(chronic low back pain).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 6 of 9
right side over the last year due to issues that she has been noting [in?] left arm” – but
there is no new examination, assessment, or plan supporting an ongoing left-sided injury.
Ex. 23 at 32. And at the April 2021 encounter, Petitioner simultaneously mentioned
“regular fairly heavy use of the arm playing piano and bass” – which both suggests that
her left arm was functional by that point,11 and a potential unrelated cause for her new
right-sided injury. See also, e.g., Ex. 22 at 9 – 12, 26 - 30 (May and July 2021 orthopedics
evaluations of right shoulder pain “start[ing] about three weeks ago… from sleeping on
her right side more,” with no reference to the left shoulder) (emphasis added); id. at 23 –
25 (May 2021 PT initial evaluation for right shoulder); Ex. 38 at 4 (February 2022 PT
reevaluation for right shoulder, at which Petitioner referenced “playing music and
teaching”); Ex. 43 at 2 (October 2022 orthopedics reevaluation for right shoulder, “also
mention[ing] previous left shoulder problems and that is doing fine now without any
issues”).12
I recognize that in November 2022, Petitioner’s PCP recorded that her right arm
injury was “probably due to overuse from her previous left arm/ shoulder issue. Had no
right arm issues previously.” Ex. 42 at 17. But that note long post-dates the events in
question, did not result in any new treatment for either shoulder, and was potentially
written at Petitioner’s behest. Ex. 42 at 11 (reflecting that Petitioner was “here to have
previous note amended”); see also Response at 16 – 17 (arguing that by November 2022,
the parties were engaged in damages discussions, and Respondent had conveyed a
proffer that did not incorporate the right-sided injury). Therefore, it does not constitute a
reliable or persuasive medical opinion linking the two complaints.
Overall, Petitioner may sincerely believe that her SIRVA resulted in injury to her
opposite arm – but 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”).13
11 See also Ex. 2 at 2 (fact witness’s affidavit completed in January 2021, stating that Petitioner had an
ongoing left shoulder injury, but had resumed practicing bass 45 minutes at a time, as well as household
tasks such as opening jars, using a can opener, and chopping vegetables).
12 At best, the medical record evidence supports that Petitioner began sleeping on her right side after
developing her SIRVA, and she continued sleeping on her right side long-term after the SIRVA substantially
improved (perhaps out of habit). The medical records contain much less support for her allegation of long-
term overreliance on her right side – or that any such behaviors caused the right-sided injury.
13 This case is also similar to others lacking preponderant evidence that a SIRVA in one arm caused
subsequent injury to the other. See, e.g., Richardson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-674V, 2023
6

Case 1:21-vv-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 7 of 9
Therefore, the permissible damages award should only seek to provide
recompense for Petitioner’s right SIRVA – which involved a prompt initial evaluation (14
days post-vaccination) and some high pain ratings and moderately reduced ROM. But
the SIRVA was nevertheless treated conservatively (with temporary increased use of her
preexisting Tramadol prescription, and other more conservative pain measures, one PRP
injection, seven formal PT sessions followed by a HEP, PCP and orthopedics evaluations,
and an MRI). In fact, Petitioner’s injury had substantially improved by ten months post-
vaccination. Any lingering symptoms are not documented. The medical records, plus
Petitioner and one witness’s affidavits, also support that the SIRVA significantly impacted
her ability to perform and teach music during that acute ten-month timeframe, but not
later.
Turning to the case law, I agree with Petitioner that her initial course was similar
to what claimants in Leslie and Cooper experienced. However, those petitioners
established more significant residual effects,14 thereby justifying the past pain and
suffering awards of above $100,000.00 (unusual for SIRVAs not involving surgical
intervention). Ms. Havis has not done the same. Respondent’s citations to Ramos and
Merwitz (resulting in pain and suffering awards of $40 – 50,000.00) are also not
instructive, however – since Ms. Havis sought medical attention much sooner (14 days
post-vaccination, compared to 91 days in Merwitz and 121 days in Ramos), had higher
pain ratings and documented functional limitations, and demonstrated personal impacts
(in particular, her inability to perform or teach music during her active treatment course).
Overall, I find that Petitioner’s initially-moderate injury and disruption to her
occupation, balanced against a relatively conservative course of treatment and
substantial recovery by 10 months post-vaccination, warrants a past pain and suffering
award of $75,000.00.
WL 6180813, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 16, 2023) (finding that the SIRVA’s surgical intervention was
successful, and the opposing arm’s injury was most likely due to age and/or unrelated aggravating factors);
Green v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-378V, 2023 WL 6444421, at *2 – 3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Sept. 1, 2023) (noting an over 10-month gap between the two complaints). These stand in contrast to
Petitioner’s cited case, McDorman, which involved a much closer temporal link. McDorman v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-814V, 2021 WL 5504698, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2021) (noting
that Petitioner was still in post-operative PT for her SIRVA, when pain in the opposing shoulder was first
documented).
14 Cooper, 2018 WL 6288181, at *12 (accepting that the petitioner “continued to experience residual pain
and reduced range of motion through the date of the hearing… approximately two years and nine months
following [her]] injurious vaccination”); Leslie, 2021 WL 837138, at *10 – 11 (noting that the SIRVA included
uncommon features of bone erosion and possible infection, and its residual symptoms continued for
approximately three years post-vaccination).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 8 of 9
III. Actual Unreimbursable Expenses
Compensation shall also include “actual unreimbursable expenses” which: “(i)
resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which the petitioner seeks compensation, (ii)
were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury, and (iii) were for
diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation, developmental evaluation,
special education, vocational training and placement, case management services,
counseling, emotional or behavioral therapy, residential and custodial care and service
expenses, special equipment, related travel expenses, and facilities determined to be
reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B).
Petitioner requested reimbursement of $2,728.58 for medical expenses and
associated mileage. She helpfully included subtotals relating to her left SIRVA versus the
subsequent right-sided injury (which I have not accepted, as discussed above). Brief at
13 – 14 and n. 1; see also Brief – Attachment 1 (spreadsheet); Exs. 28 – 33, 44, 52 (billing
records). Respondent stipulates to the reimbursement of expenses for the left SIRVA.
Response at 22.
In calculating reimbursement for the mileage driven to those medical
appointments, however, Respondent requests application of the IRS’s medical mileage
rate. Response at 22. But Respondent does not actually defend that position – and
Petitioner has correctly utilized the higher business mileage rate, see Brief – Attachment
1; Reply at 8 – 9, which I have consistently found to be more appropriate. See, e.g., Perez
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-746V, 2024 WL 3030395, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 17, 2024); Walter v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1461V, 2024 WL
1299576, at *4 – 5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2024); Tappendorf v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 20-1592V, 2024 WL 1299566, at *4 – 5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 23,
2024). Accordingly, I will award $1,382.13 for reimbursement of actual
unreimbursable expenses.
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and the parties’ arguments, I award Petitioner a
lump sum payment of $76,382.13 (representing $75,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, and $1,382.13 for actual unreimbursable expenses). 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.15
15 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
8

Case 1:21-vv-00583-UNJ Document 75 Filed 12/06/24 Page 9 of 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9