VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00616
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00616
Petitioner: Melinda Mae Robinson
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2025-09-23
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-03-11
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 105000

AI-assisted case summary:
On January 12, 2021, Melinda Mae Robinson filed a petition alleging a right shoulder SIRVA after a Tdap vaccination given during an emergency-department visit for a cut thumb on March 11, 2019. The vaccination record said the shot was administered in the left deltoid, but Ms. Robinson consistently maintained that it was actually placed high in her right arm.

Two weeks after vaccination, Ms. Robinson reported a two-week history of right shoulder pain and said the pain started two days after the injection. She had full motion but pain and mild weakness. Steroids helped only partly. A later MRI showed subacromial/subdeltoid bursal fluid, impingement, and rotator-cuff tearing, while EMG/NCS testing was normal. Orthopedist Dr. Kevin Collins diagnosed a partial rotator-cuff tear, gave a cortisone injection, and then performed right shoulder arthroscopic debridement, subacromial decompression, rotator cuff repair, and biceps tenodesis on August 29, 2019.

Ms. Robinson attended about 49 physical therapy sessions through May 2020. By then her range of motion was functional, but she still had pain with lifting and overhead reaching and diminished strength. She later returned to care in 2022 reporting that she still could not lift more than three pounds with her right hand, though imaging showed an intact repair and no further surgery was recommended. Her affidavits described a high injection site, blood running down her arm after the shot, difficulty pulling up pants the next day, months of pain, and ongoing limits with ordinary household tasks. Her husband and nurse daughter corroborated the change.

Respondent argued that the vaccine record controlled and showed a left-arm injection. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the broader evidence proved the Tdap shot was more likely given in the right arm, then found the Table SIRVA and severity requirements met. On September 23, 2025, he awarded $105,000.00 for pain and suffering, finding a mild-to-moderate injury lasting about 15 months. Ms. Robinson was represented by Bridget Candace McCullough of Muller Brazil, LLP.

Theory of causation field:
Tdap vaccine during emergency visit, March 11, 2019, adult inferred, alleged right Table SIRVA despite vaccine record saying left deltoid. COMPENSATED after contested situs/damages. Key evidence: petitioner and family affidavits describing right-arm injection and high bandage site, March 25, 2019 report of right shoulder pain starting two days after injection, steroids, MRI with subacromial/subdeltoid bursal fluid/impingement/rotator cuff tears, normal EMG/NCS, June 2019 cortisone injection, August 29, 2019 arthroscopic debridement/subacromial decompression/rotator cuff repair/biceps tenodesis, 49 PT visits through May 2020, and later pain/weakness complaints after a two-year treatment gap. Respondent disputed situs and damages. Chief Special Master Corcoran found right-arm situs proven and awarded $105,000 pain/suffering. Decision September 23, 2025. Attorney Bridget McCullough; respondent Felicia Langel.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00616-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-23
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/23/2025) regarding 50 DECISION of Special Master, Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record. ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 1 of 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0616V
MELINDA MAE ROBINSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 23, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 12, 2021, Melinda Mae Robinson filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2
(the “Vaccine Act”), which she amended on September 22, 2022. Petitioner alleges that
she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a
tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine received on March 11, 2019.
Amended Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 2 of 13
The parties were unable to settle the claim, and have now fully briefed entitlement
and damages (ECF Nos. 46, 47). For the reasons set forth herein, I find that Petitioner is
entitled to compensation, and award damages for actual pain and suffering in the amount
of $105,000.00.
I. Factual Evidence
A. Medical Records
On March 11, 2019, Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine, during an emergency
department visit for a cut on her thumb. Ex. 1 at 3; Ex. 15 at 191. The vaccination record
states that it was administered in Petitioner’s left deltoid, although she maintains that it
was actually administered in her right arm. Id.; Ex. 15 at 198.
Two weeks later (March 25, 2019), Petitioner saw Dr. John Doan at Moody Air
Force Base, complaining of a two-week history of right shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 68. She
related her pain to a vaccination, stating that her pain “started two days after injection.”
Id. Her pain was “unremitting” and ranged from five to seven out of ten. Id. She had full
active and passive range of motion (“ROM”), with pain, along with mild strength deficits.
Id. at 68, 69. Dr. Doan assessed her with an adverse vaccination effect, suspecting that
her pain was due to inflammation surrounding the axillary nerve from her recent
vaccination. Id. at 69. He prescribed oral steroids and ibuprofen. Id.
Petitioner saw Dr. Herman Dykes at Moody Air Force Base for right shoulder pain
the following month (April 24, 2019). Ex. 5 at 66. The steroid taper had improved her
condition by 40%, but she still had sharp pain with right shoulder extension, flexion, and
lying on her right side. Id. She also reported weakness with abduction. Id. On examination,
her shoulder exhibited “exquisite” pain on palpation. Id. at 67. Her ROM was normal but
painful. Id. She was assessed with right shoulder pain, with Dr. Dykes stating that “some
of the tetanus [vaccine] may have entered the subacromial space” and ordering a second
round of oral steroids. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Dykes the following week (May 1, 2019). Ex. 5 at 63. The
second steroid taper had helped decrease her discomfort, but she still had “significant
shoulder discomfort and weakness with usage.” Id. Dr. Dykes referred Petitioner for an
EMG/NCV and MRI. Id. at 64. The MRI showed abnormal fluid in the
subacromial/subdeltoid bursa as well as impingement and evidence of rotator cuff tears.
Id. at 178-79. Petitioner saw Dr. Dykes on June 19, 2019 to review the MRI, and he
referred her to an orthopedist. Id. at 59-60.
The next day (June 20, 2019), Petitioner saw a neurologist, and reported pain and
limited ROM in her right shoulder since her March vaccination. Ex. 12 at 4. A nerve
2

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 3 of 13
conduction study was normal, with no electrophysiologic evidence of entrapment
neuropathy, radiculopathy, myopathy, or plexopathy. Id. at 5.
Petitioner saw Dr. Kevin Collins for right shoulder pain the following week (June
26, 2019). Ex. 8 at 26-28. On examination, her right shoulder ROM was 170 degrees in
abduction, 170 degrees in forward elevation, and 80 degrees in external rotation. Id. She
exhibited positive results on the Hawkins and O’Brien’s tests. Id. She was assessed with
a right shoulder partial rotator cuff tear and given a cortisone injection and PT referral. Id.
at 28-29.
Petitioner underwent a PT evaluation for right shoulder pain on July 9, 2019. Ex. 8
at 172. She reported that her pain began after a vaccination, and that she now had
decreased shoulder mobility and pain. Id. During the evaluation, she rated her pain as
two out of ten, ranging to five out of ten at worst. Id. On examination, her right shoulder
active ROM was 134 degrees in flexion, 102 degrees in abduction, 62 degrees in external
rotation, and 70 degrees in internal rotation. Her right shoulder passive ROM was 170
degrees in flexion, 165 degrees in abduction, and 70 degrees in external and internal
rotation. Id. at 172-73.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Collins on July 31, 2019, reporting no change in her pain.
Ex. 8 at 23, 25. They discussed treatment options, and Petitioner elected to proceed with
surgery. Id. at 23, 26.
On August 29, 2019, Dr. Collins performed right shoulder arthroscopic
debridement, subacromial decompression, rotator cuff repair, and biceps tenodesis on
Petitioner. Ex. 3 at 17-19; Ex. 8 at 30-32. Petitioner saw Dr. Collins for a post-operative
visit on September 11, 2019. Ex. 8 at 17. She was healing well, with no signs of infection.
Id. at 19. She was instructed to continue exercises and start PT in two weeks. Id.
Petitioner underwent a post-operative PT evaluation on September 25, 2019. Ex.
8 at 167. She reported pain, weakness, and stiffness, and rated her pain seven out of ten.
Id. On examination, her passive ROM was 80 degrees in flexion and 50 degrees in
abduction. Id. at 168.
Petitioner followed up with Dr. Collins on October 9 and November 13, 2019. Ex.
8 at 12-16. She was progressing well, and he instructed her to continue PT. Id. On
February 11, 2020, Petitioner saw Dr. Collins. Ex. 8 at 10. She was instructed to continue
PT at her own pace. Id. at 12.
On May 13, 2020, Petitioner returned to Dr. Collins. Ex. 8 at 7. Her shoulder was
“doing okay,” but she was now experiencing neck pain and headaches. Id. at 9. She
reported that reaching out increased her shoulder pain, and inquired about treatment
options. Id. On examination, she had “normal” active ROM, with positive results on the
Hawkins’s and Neer’s impingement tests. Id. Dr. Collins ordered a repeat MRI. Id.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 4 of 13
Petitioner attended 49 PT sessions between September 25, 2019 and May 14,
2020. Ex. 8 at 45. At her last session on May 14th, she reported pain of three out of ten
that worsened to five out of ten without medication. Id. Her shoulder ROM was now
“functional,” though her strength remained diminished and she continued to have pain
with lifting and reaching overhead. Id. at 46.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Collins to review the MRI on June 2, 2020. Ex. 8 at 5.
The MRI showed full healing of her rotator cuff tear, although her supraspinatus tendon
showing a small area of tendinosis. Id. at 7. He advised her to stop PT and continue home
exercises. Id. He also recommended a TENS3 unit.
Petitioner received no further care bearing on this claim until two years later - on
July 27, 2022, when she saw Dr. Vanessa Rose to establish primary care. Ex. 16 at 15.
Petitioner reported that she could not lift more than three pounds with her right hand and
wanted to be re-evaluated. Id. A right shoulder MRI was ordered. Id. The MRI showed
postsurgical changes without a discrete focal full-thickness rotator cuff tear and mild
degenerative acromioclavicular joint hypertrophy. Id. at 5-7.
Three months later (October 22, 2022), Petitioner saw orthopedist Dr. John Wilson
for right shoulder pain. Ex. 16 at 10. She explained that since she received the tetanus
vaccine, her shoulder “has not been the same.” Id. She had areas of vague and diffuse
tenderness and weakness. Id. On examination, her right shoulder exhibited full ROM, with
some diffuse pain with motion. Id. Her shoulder strength was good, but she experienced
episodes of weakness that did not “fit with” her clinical examination findings. Id. The MRI
showed that her previous rotator cuff repair was intact. Id. Dr. Wilson did not think surgical
intervention or imaging would be helpful, and recommended that Petitioner continue
home exercises. Id. at 10-11.
The following month (November 29, 2022), Petitioner saw physician assistant
(“PA”) Caren Martagon for shoulder pain.4 Ex. 21 at 404. Her daily pain was four out of
ten, and she managed the pain with monthly deep tissue massages and not using the
arm. Id. On examination, she had full ROM, although she reported pain with internal
rotation. Id. at 405. PA Martagon prescribed a TENS unit and referred Petitioner to sports
medicine. Id. at 404.
3 TENS is an abbreviation for transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, which involves electrical
stimulation of nerves that interferes with transmission of pain signals. TENS and transcutaneous electrical
nerve stimulation, DORLAND’S ONLINE, https://www.dorlandsonline.com/dorland/definition?id=108464 (last
visited Sept. 23, 2025).
4 The record of this visit refers both to right and left shoulder pain. From a review of the record, I find that
the references to left shoulder pain are likely typographical errors, and were meant to refer to Petitioner’s
right shoulder.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 5 of 13
B. Testimonial Evidence
Petitioner has filed a witness statement5 and three affidavits. Exs. 2, 18, 19, 20.
Petitioner states that the March 11, 20196 Tdap vaccine was administered by a nurse
standing to her right. Ex. 18 at ¶ 2. She recalls the vaccination because the nurse seemed
unprepared. Id. After administering the vaccine, the nurse walked away while blood ran
down Petitioner’s arm from the injection. Id. Petitioner had to request a bandage for the
injection site. Id. This occurred on Petitioner’s first day returning to work after 12 years
staying at home with four children, so after vaccination she went to work. Id. That night,
she looked at the bandage and thought it was odd that it was so high on her shoulder. Id.
The next day, when Petitioner got dressed her right shoulder was “very painful,”
and she did not have the strength to pull her pants up with her right arm. Ex. 18 at ¶ 3.
That night, she and her husband, who both previously served as medics in the Air Force,
discussed how high the bandage (covering the vaccination situs) was and that the vaccine
should have been administered lower. Id. She took a picture of her arm when she took
the bandage off. Id.
Over the following week, Petitioner became very concerned because she could
not use her right arm for daily activities. Ex. 18 at ¶ 4. She decided to seek medical
treatment. Id.
She received a steroid injection, which reduced the pain for a few days before it
returned. Ex. 18 at ¶ 5. After surgery, she was in “intense uncontrollable pain for the first
24 hours.” Id. at ¶ 8. She tried to return to work after three weeks, but was in too much
pain and had to go home. Id. She then worked half days until she could tolerate full days.
Id. PT was “up and down,” with progress followed by plateaus due to inflammation and
pain. Id. at ¶ 9. By the time she stopped PT, she was able to fasten her bra, put her hair
in a ponytail, and lift up to three pounds. Id.
Petitioner states that when she returned to care in 2022, the orthopedist said there
was nothing he could do, and had no explanation for why she was still in pain and unable
to lift objects over three pounds. Ex. 18 at ¶ 13. Thereafter, her primary care provider
prescribed a stronger TENS unit, which has provided the level of pain relief she previously
received from deep tissue massages. Id. at ¶ 14. As of January 2023 (when she signed
her affidavit), she continued to use the TENS unit two to three times a day. Id.
5 Exhibit 2 is labeled a declaration, but was not sworn under penalty of perjury.
6 Petitioner’s affidavit incorrectly refers to her vaccination and some of her subsequent medical treatment
as having occurred in 2018 and 2019 rather than 2019 and 2020. Ex. 18 at ¶¶ 2, 6, 9, 10. Due to these
inaccuracies, it is difficult to ascertain whether other dates listed in her affidavit (which cannot be correlated
to medical records) are accurate. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 6 of 13
Dexter Robinson, Petitioner’s spouse, filed an affidavit on her behalf. Ex. 19. He
states that the day after vaccination, Petitioner began to experience pain in her shoulder.
Id. at ¶ 5. He noticed that the wound from the needle was one to two inches higher than
where it should have been for an intramuscular injection. Id. A week later, her shoulder
pain was worse, so he made a physician appointment for her. Id. at ¶ 6.
Mr. Robinson states that before Petitioner underwent surgery, she was in constant
pain and could barely lift three pounds. Ex. 19 at ¶ 8. After surgery, Petitioner did months
of PT “to no avail,” remaining in pain. Id. at ¶ 10.
Ayja Robinson, Petitioner’s daughter and a registered nurse, submitted an affidavit
on her behalf. Ex. 20. Before her injury, Petitioner could lift a case of water bottles and
packages that came in the mail. Id. at ¶ 2. She had no difficulty with routine activities such
as drying her hair, vacuuming, putting away dishes, or taking food out of the oven. Id. at
¶ 3. However, since her shoulder injury, she cannot perform these activities on her own.
Id.
II. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
preponderantly demonstrate all matters required under Section 11(c)(1), including the
factual circumstances surrounding his or her 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 & Human 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). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration
as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health
professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper
treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are
also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health &
Human 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 & Human Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90–2808V,
6

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 7 of 13
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The Federal Circuit has
“reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete
as to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997
F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that a patient may not report every ailment,
or a physician may enter information incorrectly or not record everything he or she
observes).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received and the lack of
other award or settlement,7 a petitioner must establish that he or 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 he or she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The Vaccine
Act further includes a “severity requirement,” pursuant to which a petitioner demonstrate
that they “suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury,
or condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine . . . .” Section
11(c)(1)(D).
“[T]he fact that a Petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013, 2019 WL 978825, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (“a discharge
from medical care does not necessarily indicate there are no residual effects”). “A
treatment gap . . . does not automatically mean severity cannot be established.” Law v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0699V, 2023 WL 2641502, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 23, 2023) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for
under three months and had met physical therapy goals but still lacked full range of motion
and experienced difficulty with certain activities, then returned to care nearly five months
later reporting stiffness and continuing restrictions in motion); see also Peeples v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0634V, 2022 WL 2387749 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
26, 2022) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for four months,
followed by fifteen month gap); Silvestri v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-
1045V, 2021 WL 4205313 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 16, 2021) (finding severity
requirement satisfied where Petitioner did not seek additional treatment after the five
month mark.
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).
7 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 and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his or her injury. Section
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(E).
7

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 8 of 13
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 Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“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;
(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).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
B. Parties’ Arguments on Entitlement
Petitioner acknowledges that the vaccination record states that the vaccine was
8

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 9 of 13
administered in her left deltoid. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record, filed June 3,
2024, at *10 (ECF No. 46) (“Mot.”). Nevertheless, Petitioner asserts that preponderant
evidence indicates that the vaccine was actually administered in her right arm. Id.
Petitioner relies on photographs of her arm (Exhibit 17) plus medical records relating right
shoulder pain to her March 11, 2019 vaccination. Id. at *10-11.
Petitioner consistently attributed her right shoulder pain to the vaccine she reported
receiving in her right arm. Mot. at *11. She provided these histories soon after vaccination.
Id. And this information was provided to facilitate diagnosis and treatment, entitling the
relevant records to greater weight. Id. (citing Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528).
Respondent argues that Petitioner is not entitled to compensation because she
asserts a claim for a right arm injury, but the vaccination record “unequivocally indicates”
that the vaccine alleged as causal was administered in her left deltoid. Respondent’s
Response, filed July 31, 2024, at *8 (ECF No. 47) (“Resp.”). Respondent acknowledges
that Petitioner has filed an affidavit and photographs “allegedly showing the site of
vaccination in her right arm” – but notes that she did not do so until after Respondent first
raised the issue of the situs of vaccine administration. Id. at *9.
Respondent also asserts that Petitioner has not preponderantly demonstrated that
the notation that the vaccine was administered in Petitioner’s left deltoid is likely an error.
Resp. at *9. The photographs filed as Exhibit 17 “are not dated and simply appear to show
an area of discoloration on her right arm.” Id. at *10. Finally, although later medical records
relate Petitioner’s vaccination to her development of right shoulder pain, these records
“appear to be based solely on the histories provided by petitioner” and thus are “based
on petitioner’s assertion alone,” in Respondent’s view. Id. Respondent does not contest
that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for a Table SIRVA or statutory requirements
for compensation.
C. Factual Findings on Situs of Vaccine Administration
I find that the record supports a finding that, more likely than not, Petitioner’s Tdap
vaccine was administered in her right arm. Although the vaccination record documents
that it was administered in Petitioner’s left deltoid, all other evidence suggests that the
vaccine was administered in her right arm.
When seeking care for her right shoulder pain, Petitioner consistently related her
pain to vaccination, reporting that her right shoulder had been painful since vaccination.
That she sought care promptly after vaccination – just 14 days later – bolsters the
reliability of these records. Testimonial evidence provides further support. And there is no
evidence other than the vaccination record suggesting that the vaccine was administered
in her left arm.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 10 of 13
D. Factual Findings on SIRVA QAI Criteria and Statutory Requirements
The QAI and statutory requirements are not disputed, and I find that they are
satisfied. The record does not contain preponderant evidence that Petitioner had a history
of left shoulder pain or any other condition that would explain her post-vaccination
symptoms. Exs. 5, 18. She experienced pain within 48 hours of vaccination. Ex. 5 at 68.
She exhibited reduced ROM, and her pain and ROM limitations were limited to the
vaccinated shoulder. Ex. 8 at 172-73. She received a covered vaccine in the United
States. Ex. 1 at 3. She experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months.
Ex. 8 at 167. And she states that she never received an award or settlement for her
vaccine-related injury, nor has she filed a civil action. Ex. 2 at ¶ 6.
I find that Petitioner has established by preponderant evidence that all Table
SIRVA and QAI requirements are established. Further, she has established all statutory
requirements for entitlement. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
III. Damages
A. Legal Standard
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I fully
adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Section II of Matthews v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 22-1396V, 2025 WL 2606607 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 13,
2025).
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 $250,000.00.” 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 & Human 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.8
B. Parties’ Damages Arguments
Petitioner seeks a pain and suffering award of $145,000.00. Mot. at *15. She relies
on Stromer, Wilson, and Stein, involving awards of $145,000.00, $130,000.00, and
8 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir.
1995)).
10

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 11 of 13
$130,000.00, respectively.9 Id. at *16-18. Petitioner describes her injury as “moderately
severe,” requiring surgical intervention. Id. Her pain level was high enough that she
sought treatment just two weeks after vaccination, and her pain was seven out of ten at
worst. Id. She saw four different doctors, underwent surgery and MRIs, participated in PT,
and used an at-home TENS unit. Id. She had a difficult recovery, and surgery did not fully
resolve her injury. Id.
Respondent proposes an award of less than $95,000.00. Resp. at *18-19.
Respondent characterizes Petitioner’s injury as moderate, and notes that there have been
two SIRVA cases involving surgery featuring awards less than $100,000.00: Hunt and
Shelton, with awards of $95,000.00 and $97,500.00, respectively.10 Id. Respondent
emphasizes that by July 2019 (four months after vaccination), Petitioner’s shoulder pain
was mild, two out of ten and five out of ten at worst. Id. at *15.
Within three months after surgery, Petitioner was “progressing well.” Resp. at *15.
Three months after that, she had “appropriate” ROM. Id. And in May 2020, she was
discharged from PT after 49 sessions. Id. Although Petitioner asserts that she had a
difficult recovery and that her surgery did not resolve her injury, Respondent views the
medical records as demonstrating that Petitioner’s pain had largely resolved by May
2020. Id. at *16. An MRI showed that her rotator cuff was fully healed, and she was
discharged from PT with functional ROM.
Respondent emphasizes that, after her May 2020 PT discharge, Petitioner did not
seek treatment for, or report, any shoulder problems for over two years, despite two
intervening emergency department visits for unrelated problems. Resp. at *16. Her return
to care occurred after this case had been pending for a year and a half. Id. And when she
returned for care, her orthopedist found she had full ROM and good strength, and did not
recommend any further treatment or advanced imaging (other than an MRI). Id.
Respondent asserts that this lengthy gap “breaks the causal chain,” meaning that
Petitioner has demonstrated “at most fourteen months of treatment.” Id.
Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s case differs from the decisions she relies on.
Resp. at *17-18. The Stromer petitioner experienced significant pain for a longer time
9 Stromer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1969V, 2022 WL 1562110 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April
8, 2022-); Wilson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0035V, 2021 WL 1530731 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Mar. 18, 2021); and Stein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-171V, 2023 WL 6367719 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 25, 2023).
Petitioner cites factual details about Stein that were not included in the public decision in that case. As such,
I do not address that case in any detail.
10 Hunt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
16, 2022); Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0279V, 2021 WLO 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 21, 2021).
11

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 12 of 13
period than Ms. Robinson. Id. That petitioner rated her pain ten out of ten, and reported
she was “miserable” and was unable to participate in PT due to pain. Id. The Stromer
petitioner complained of significant pain during post-surgical PT, and had ongoing pain
and significantly reduced ROM for 16 months. Id. Respondent contrasts this with Ms.
Robinson’s injury, where she initially rated her pain between five and seven, but her pain
“resolved by forty percent within the first month.” Id.
Respondent also asserts that Wilson and Stein are not comparable because
“unlike this case, respondent had conceded that petitioner was entitled to compensation.”
Resp. at *17. And the Stein petitioner’s course of treatment spanned three and a half
years, much longer than Ms. Robinson’s. Id.
Respondent asserts that Hunt and Shelton are better comparisons. Resp. at *18-
19. The Hunt petitioner suffered a mild to moderate SIRVA for approximately 15 months,
with periods of little to no pain. Id. The Hunt petitioner’s pain was initially eight out of ten.
That petitioner underwent two cortisone injections, PT, and surgery, and continued to
report pain over 17 months after surgery, resulting in additional cortisone injections. Id. In
Respondent’s view, Ms. Robinson should receive a lower award than the Hunt petitioner
because her initial pain was lower and her injury duration was shorter, with a better
recovery after surgery. Id.
C. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
I find that the record supports a finding that Petitioner’s injury most likely continued
for approximately 15 months. Overall, Petitioner had a mild to moderate SIRVA. For the
first month she had moderate and “unremitting” pain, but after two rounds of steroids her
pain was mild. She describes intense pain following surgery, but after several months of
PT she was able to stop treatment. She underwent surgery, one cortisone injection and
attended approximately 50 PT sessions.
Petitioner continued treating until June 2020, when her orthopedist stated that her
MRI showed full healing of her rotator cuff, with a small area of tendinosis. Ex. 8 at 5. He
recommended that she stop PT and continue home exercises, along with a TENS unit.
Id. Petitioner did not seek additional treatment or evaluation thereafter for over two years,
supporting the conclusion that her injury abated soon after her June 2020 appointment.
I acknowledge that Petitioner again sought treatment for her right shoulder in 2022.
But this occurred after a lengthy, two-year, gap (and also after the filing of this action). At
this point, her MRI showed no pathology, and no treatment was recommended. As such,
the evidence is not compelling enough to find that the pain she reported at that time was
more likely than not related to her vaccine-related injury from years earlier.
Although Hunt is over-referenced in the Program by Respondent (usually in the
goal of advocating for lower pain and suffering awards), it is in this case the closest
comparable. Ms. Robinson and the Hunt petitioner both sought care approximately two
12

Case 1:21-vv-00616-UNJ Document 54 Filed 10/23/25 Page 13 of 13
weeks after vaccination, and treated for over a year. Both underwent surgery, cortisone
injections, and PT. But Ms. Robinson’s pain was persistent, while the Hunt petitioner had
periods of little to no pain. Ms. Robinson received fewer cortisone injections, but attended
much more PT over a longer period of time.
Stromer is not a good comparable. The petitioner in that case consistently reported
much higher pain ratings over a longer time span. And the Wilson and Stein petitioners’
injuries persisted for significantly longer than Ms. Robinson’s. In light of the record
evidence, I find that an award of $105,000.00 for pain and suffering is appropriate.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that Petitioner’s March 11, 2019 Tdap vaccine was administered in
her right arm, GRANT Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record, and find that
Petitioner suffered an injury that meets the definition for a Table SIRVA and is
entitled to compensation. I find that $105,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.11
Based on consideration of the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I
award Petitioner a lump sum of $105,000.00, 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 Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11 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 & Human Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
12 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
13