VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00972
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00972
Petitioner: Kathaleen Lang
Filed: 2021-02-22
Decided: 2025-02-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-04
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 64372

AI-assisted case summary:
Kathaleen Lang, a 71-year-old retiree, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 22, 2021. She alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 4, 2020. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded entitlement to compensation, agreeing that Ms. Lang's injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. The case proceeded to a damages determination because the parties could not agree on a settlement amount. Ms. Lang's medical records indicated that approximately 34 days after vaccination, she experienced post-vaccination shoulder pain ranging from 2 to 8 out of 10. An examination revealed limited range of motion and positive impingement signs, with an unremarkable shoulder x-ray. The initial assessment was impingement syndrome, with the orthopedist noting that her shoulder was not yet frozen. She received a steroid injection and was advised to use ice and elevation. Nearly four months later, she reported ongoing shoulder pain with no relief from the steroid injection. Her primary care provider observed reasonable range of motion, recommended over-the-counter pain relief, and referred her for physical therapy. Ms. Lang attended fourteen physical therapy sessions over six weeks, which documented ongoing pain and reduced range of motion without meaningful improvement. She was discharged from physical therapy due to relocating. A reevaluation by the orthopedist amended the assessment to adhesive capsulitis. An MRI suggested mild to moderate glenohumeral arthrosis, a small glenohumeral joint effusion with synovitis, and minimal undersurface fraying with mild enthesopathic cystic change. The orthopedist also assessed cervical radiculopathy and prescribed oral steroids, which provided some relief, but the pain returned after the course ended. The orthopedist did not record a plan to refill the medication and advised continuing physical therapy. Further evaluation of her cervical spine revealed findings at C4-C7, and a neuro consult and possible EMG were suggested. Ms. Lang then underwent eighteen additional physical therapy sessions over two months, which documented ongoing shoulder injury, references to her neck and cervical spine, some improvement, but persistent pain, reduced range of motion, and difficulty sleeping. There was no formal discharge summary. In January 2022, Ms. Lang stated she experienced ongoing discomfort and mild pain at rest and with activity, such as kayaking and lifting. She discontinued treatment due to family and personal issues taking precedence. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, reviewed the evidence, including medical records and party briefs, and compared the case to prior SIRVA decisions. He noted that Ms. Lang suffered a relatively mild SIRVA that did not require surgery. He found that while she attended more physical therapy sessions and reported higher pain ratings than in the analogous Foster case, her treatment course included a four-month gap and potential contributions from cervical radiculopathy. He also noted that Ms. Lang had not established that her SIRVA impacted personal or professional obligations. Ultimately, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Ms. Lang $64,372.78, comprising $64,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $372.78 for past unreimbursable expenses. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie of Howie Law, PC, and Respondent was represented by Benjamin Patrick Warder of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued on January 27, 2025.

Theory of causation field:
Kathaleen Lang, age 71, received an influenza vaccine on September 4, 2020, and subsequently developed a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Respondent conceded that the injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, determined the award for past pain and suffering by comparing Ms. Lang's case to prior SIRVA decisions, particularly the Foster case. Ms. Lang was awarded $64,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $372.78 for past unreimbursable expenses, totaling $64,372.78. The decision was issued on January 26, 2025. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie, and Respondent was represented by Benjamin Patrick Warder.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00972-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/05/2023) regarding 38 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00972-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0972V
KATHALEEN LANG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: September 5, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 22, 2021, Kathaleen Lang 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”) following her receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September
4, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On September 4, 2023, 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’s alleged injury is consistent
with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 3-4 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a),
1 Because this unpublished 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 (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00972-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 2 of 2
100.3(c)(10)). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal requisites
for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 4.
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-00972-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-26
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/27/2025) regarding 47 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00972-UNJ Document 54 Filed 02/26/25 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0972V
KATHALEEN LANG, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 27, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 22, 2021, Kathaleen Lang filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) following her receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September
4, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of
the Office of Special Masters, and although entitlement was conceded in Petitioner’s
favor, the parties could not agree to a damages figure, and their dispute was therefore
submitted to resolution at a “Motions Day” proceeding on January 24, 2025.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in 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-00972-UNJ Document 54 Filed 02/26/25 Page 2 of 6
For the following reasons, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation
of $64,372.78 (representing $64,000.00 for past pain and suffering, plus $372.78 for
past unreimbursable expenses).
I. Procedural History
After initiating her claim, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition (adding further detail
and citations to the medical records) on January 6, 2022 (ECF No. 13). Respondent
conceded entitlement of Petitioner’s left SIRVA in a Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 37), and I
accordingly issued a corresponding Ruling (ECF No. 38) in September 2023. Just two
months later, Petitioner reported that damages could not be informally resolved, see
Status Report (ECF No. 41). The parties subsequently briefed damages. Petitioner’s
Motion for a Ruling on the Record on Damages filed Jan. 26, 2024 (ECF No. 42)
(hereinafter “Brief”), Respondent’s Response filed Mar. 26, 2024 (ECF No. 43);
Petitioner’s Reply filed Apr. 25, 2024 (ECF No. 44). Afterwards, the parties confirmed
their joint stipulation of the reimbursement of $372.78 for past unreimbursable expenses.
Accordingly, they only disputed the appropriate award for past pain and suffering. See
Status Report filed Jan. 7, 2025 (ECF No. 46).
At the end of the January 24, 2025 expedited hearing, I issued an oral ruling from
the bench on damages in this case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the
hearing, which is yet to be filed with the case’s docket. The transcript from the hearing is,
however, fully incorporated into this Decision.
II. Authority
In another recent decision, I discussed at length 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
2

Case 1:21-vv-00972-UNJ Document 54 Filed 02/26/25 Page 3 of 6
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering.3
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact his
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing the analysis in this case, I review the record as a whole to include
the medical records, declarations, affidavits, and all other filed evidence, plus the parties’
briefs and other pleadings. I consider prior awards for pain and suffering in 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.
A careful review of the evidence establishes that Ms. Lang suffered a relatively
mild SIRVA. She was a seventy-one (71) year-old retiree upon receiving the at-issue flu
vaccine in her non-dominant left arm, at a pharmacy in New York on September 4, 2020.
Ex. 2 at 3.
Thirty-four (34) days later, on October 8, 2020, a New York orthopedist evaluated
her complaint of post-vaccination shoulder pain ranging in severity from 2 – 8/10. An
exam found somewhat limited ROM and positive impingement signs. An x-ray of the
shoulder was unremarkable. The assessment was impingement syndrome, “no frozen
shoulder yet.” The orthopedist wrote that Petitioner’s shoulder was not frozen yet. The
orthopedist administered a steroid injection, and encouraged ice and elevation. Ex. 5 at
10 – 11.
Nearly four months later, on February 1, 2021, Petitioner had a telemedicine
encounter with a primary care provider (“PCP”) in Florida, chiefly complaining of ongoing
shoulder pain “with no help” from the steroid injection. The PCP observed “reasonable
range of motion [“ROM”),” recommended Aleve for the pain, and entered a referral for
physical therapy (“PT”). Ex. 3 at 59 – 61.
Petitioner subsequently attended fourteen (14) PT sessions over the course of six
weeks, concluding on March 26, 2021. Those records reflect ongoing pain and reduced
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)).
3

Case 1:21-vv-00972-UNJ Document 54 Filed 02/26/25 Page 4 of 6
ROM without meaningful improvement. She was discharged from PT because she was
moving back from Florida to New York, where she would follow up with her orthopedist.
See generally Ex. 9 at 9 – 45.
At the April 22, 2021 reevaluation, the orthopedist confirmed an ongoing shoulder
injury; amended his assessment from impingement syndrome to adhesive capsulitis. Ex.
5 at 13 – 15. The orthopedist ordered an MRI, which was completed six days later and
suggested: “mild to moderate glenohumeral arthrosis; small glenohumeral joint effusion
with synovitis; minimal undersurface fraying with mild enthesopathic cystic change.” Ex.
10 at 6.
On May 6, 2021, the orthopedist assessed Petitioner’s left shoulder with both
adhesive capsulitis and osteoarthritis, for which he prescribed a course of oral steroids.
But the orthopedist also assessed cervical radiculopathy - writing: “If symptoms persist,
will work up her neck as the source of pain.” Ex. 5 at 18-20.4
On May 27, 2021, the orthopedist recorded that Petitioner “took the MDP [oral
steroid course] which helped as well but after she finished that the pain returns.” Ex. 5 at
22. However the orthopedist did not record any plan to refill that medication. Instead, he
advised Petitioner to continue PT. Id. at 24. And after an x-ray of the cervical spine
revealed findings at C4 – C7, he “suggested neuro consult, possible EMG. If not
improvement [with PT?] consider pain management consult.” Id.
There are no further records from the orthopedist or those suggested specialists,
other than in association with the eighteen (18) PT sessions (at a different practice, in
New York) over a two-month period concluding on June 24, 2021. Those PT records
document an ongoing shoulder injury, but also references to the neck and cervical spine.
The records document some improvement but ongoing pain, reduced ROM, and trouble
sleeping. There is no formal discharge summary or explanation for the end of treatment
in June 2021. Ex. 10 at 11 – 57.
In January 2022, Petitioner prepared a sworn statement describing her SIRVA,
and reporting ongoing “discomfort and, at times, even mild pain, both at rest and with
activity” – specifically kayaking, and lifting and carrying items. Ex. 1 at ¶ 25. Petitioner
received some benefit and improvement from PT, but discontinued treatment due to other
family and personal issues (further described in the affidavit) taking precedence. Id.
4 Petitioner states that she actually received two oral steroid course for her SIRVA. Brief at 2, 25, 26; Reply
at 5, 7, 11. But she did not include a citation to corroborate any second/ refill pack, and she may have been
inadvertently referring to prior medical records for an unrelated injury, see Ex. 5 at 6.
4

Case 1:21-vv-00972-UNJ Document 54 Filed 02/26/25 Page 5 of 6
Petitioner submits that $85,000.00 would be a reasonable award for her past pain
and suffering, based on direct comparison to specific past decisions awarding that, or
close to that figure. Brief at 22 – 27.5
Respondent contends that $85,000.00 would be “excessive” based on his review
of Ms. Lang’s evidence and comparison to her cited cases. Response at 2, 11 – 15. He
instead recommends an award “below” the $45,000.00 – $60,000.00.00 awarded in five
past cases. Id. at 15.6 But Respondent presents these cases in a table, id. at 9 – 11
(commingled with yet four more cases) and offers very limited head-to-head comparison
to Ms. Lang, id. at 13 – 14. He stated that pain and suffering awards are subjective, and
in the past, “his recommendation of a specific number has not assisted the special
masters in their determinations.” Id. at 6. And at the January 24, 2025, expedited hearing,
upon my questioning, Respondent’s counsel stated that he did not have authority to
recommend a specific number in Ms. Lang’s case.
As discussed at the hearing, I reviewed all of the parties’ cited cases, but identified
Foster as perhaps the best analogy here. The Foster petitioner, and Ms. Lang, each
suffered a relatively mild SIRVA, which fortunately did not require surgery. Each
individual’s treatment course began about one month post-vaccination with an
orthopedics consult, and an early steroid injection which did not provide significant relief.
Each individual received one prescription medication. And in each case, PT was
somewhat helpful in improving the SIRVA, and marked the conclusion of formal treatment
at about 9 months post-vaccination.
There are some differences, however. As Ms. Lang notes, she attended more PT
sessions (32, compared to 16 by the Foster petitioner) and she tended to report higher
pain ratings. Reply at 10. But Ms. Lang’s treatment course also featured a four-month
treatment gap (from October 2020 – February 2021) which is not explained by any relief
5 Dhanoa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb.
1, 2018) (awarding $95,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Rael v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-
1462V, 2020 WL 901449 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 28, 2020) ($85,000.00); Russano v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 18-392V, 2020 WL 3639804 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) ($80,000.00); Kim v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-418V, 2018 WL 3991022 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 20, 2018)
($75,000.00); Attig v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1029V, 2019 WL 1749405 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 19, 2019) ($75,000.00).
6 Mejias v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1944V, 2021 WL 5895622 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 5,
2023) (awarding $45,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Green v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
378V, 2023 WL 6444421 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2023) ($55,000.00); Aponte v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 20-1031V, 2022 WL 4707180 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 2, 2022) ($60,000.00); Klausen
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1977V, 2023 WL 2368823 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 2, 2023)
($60,000.00); Foster v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-647V, 2024 WL 1073009 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 6, 2024) ($60,000.00).
5

Case 1:21-vv-00972-UNJ Document 54 Filed 02/26/25 Page 6 of 6
from the steroid injection or otherwise – suggesting that her pain was perhaps more
manageable than the high pain ratings would indicate. Moreover, the later medical
records suggest that notwithstanding Petitioner’s conceded SIRVA, her ongoing
complaints might in part reflect sequelae of cervical radiculopathy (although this question
was not fully worked up in the medical records before me). Additionally, Petitioner has not
established that her SIRVA impacted any personal or professional obligations. Compare
Foster, 2024 WL 1073009 (recognizing missed work as a volleyball coach, and difficulty
caring for four children including an infant).
Based on my own experience and a comparison to past cases, Ms. Lang should
receive an equivalent, or even less, than what was awarded in Foster. But Respondent
has not adequately defended his position, and Petitioner did a better job overall explaining
the basis for her demand, so I will go slightly higher, to $64,000.00. (Respondent is more
likely in future cases to prevail in arguing for a “lower” award if he actually identifies what
that award should be.)
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record,
Petitioner is awarded a lump sum of $64,372.78 (representing $64,000.00 for past
pain and suffering, and $372.78 for past unreimbursable expenses) to be paid
through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be
available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7 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.
6