VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01009
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01009
Petitioner: Stacey Gooding
Filed: 2021-03-01
Decided: 2026-06-04
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-07
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 123805

AI-assisted case summary:
Stacey Gooding filed a petition alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 7, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The Chief Special Master found that Ms. Gooding is entitled to compensation and awarded damages. The decision details the legal standards for SIRVA claims under the Vaccine Injury Table, including the requirement for pain onset within 48 hours and the absence of other conditions explaining the symptoms. Respondent argued that Ms. Gooding failed to establish timely pain onset and that a SLAP tear discovered during surgery was an alternative cause. The Special Master found that Ms. Gooding's delay in seeking treatment was reasonable and that her pain onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The Special Master also determined that the SLAP tear, which was asymptomatic and discovered during surgery, did not preclude a SIRVA diagnosis. The decision awarded $122,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $1,805.60 for past unreimbursed expenses, for a total award of $123,805.60. The case was resolved by this damages decision.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01009-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-07-09
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/04/2026) regarding 49 DECISION of Special Master, Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1009V
STACEY GOODING,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: June 4, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 1, 2021, Stacey Gooding filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”).3 She alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, after receiving an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 7, 2020. Amended Petition at 1, ¶ 1, 11. The matter
was assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” (the “SPU”). ECF No. 17.
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).
3 Petitioner filed an amended petition on October 7, 2022, providing additional detail and medical record
citations. ECF No. 21.

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 2 of 12
For the reasons set forth below, and after briefing by the parties, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation, and I award damages in the amount of
$123,805.60, representing $122,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, as well as
$1,805.60 for past unreimbursed expenses.
I. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
2

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 3 of 12
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying 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) (2017).
B. The Parties’ Arguments
Respondent contends that Ms. Gooding has failed to establish pain onset within
48 hours as required for a Table SIRVA. Rule 4(c) Report, filed Oct. 2, 2024, at 6-7, ECF
No. 44; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)XIV(B) & (c)(10)(ii) (requiring first symptom and pain
3

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 4 of 12
onset specifically within 48 hours of vaccination). Respondent emphasizes the 36-day
delay before Petitioner sought treatment, and lack of specificity in her symptoms initiation
description. Rule 4(c) Report at 6-7. He also cites Petitioner’s portrayal of “waxing and
waning symptoms ‘after’ vaccination.” Id. at 7.
Although not clearly stated, Respondent also appears to argue that Petitioner has
failed to meet the fourth QAI criterion, requiring the absence of a viable alternative cause.
Rule 4(c) Report at 7; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iv) (requiring that there be no other
condition or abnormality that would explain a petitioner’s symptoms). Mentioning the type
1 SLAP5 tear debrided during Petitioner’s arthroscopic surgery performed in September
2021, Respondent contends that Ms. Gooding “has not set forth any evidence to
demonstrate how this ‘condition or abnormality’ of a SLAP tear, which could explain her
symptoms, is associated with SIRVA and could result from the flu vaccination she
received on October 7, 2020.” Rule 4(c) Report at 7.
In her brief, Petitioner emphasizes that she consistently linked her left shoulder
pain to the flu vaccine she received, showing an uninterrupted causal link and temporal
relationship. Petitioner’s Brief on Entitlement and Damages (“Brief”), filed July 9, 2025, at
12-14, ECF No. 25. She criticizes Respondent’s interpretation of the QAI requirement
related to pain onset as incorrect, to the extent Respondent purports it requires granular
specificity. Id. And citing language in my past rulings observing that it is not uncommon
for petitioners to delay seeking treatment, Petitioner insists that her initial 36-day delay
before seeking treatment does not undercut the preponderant evidence – including her
affidavit, supporting an immediate pain onset. Id. at 14-15.
Regarding the fourth QAI criterion, Petitioner insists that “in the greater context
of the surgical record, and [P]etitioner’s record as a whole, it is clear that [P]etitioner’s
symptoms stem from her vaccination, and not from a SLAP tear.” Brief at 15. Noting that
her arthroscopic surgery was performed to repair a partial thickness tear of the
supraspinatus, she stresses that her orthopedic surgeon did not identify the SLAP tear
until performing surgery. Furthermore, he listed only the rotator cuff tear, impingement,
and subacromial bursitis as post-surgical diagnoses. Id.
In his response, Respondent reiterated the arguments set forth in his Rule 4(c)
Report. Respondent’s Response to Brief (“Opp.”), filed Sept. 17, 2025, at 7-9, ECF No.
47. Clarifying that he does not expect “petitioners to provide an hourly chronology or to
describe their injuries using exact wording of the Table QAI,” he nevertheless insists that
“specificity becomes even more important the longer a petitioner waits to seek treatment.”
5 SLAP stands for Superior Labrum Anterior Posterior. MEDICAL ABBREVIATIONS at 552 (16th ed. 2020).
4

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 5 of 12
Id. at 7. Noting the location of Petitioner’s SLAP tear, he again contends that this condition
cannot be associated with the flu vaccine Petitioner received. Id. at 8-9.
In her reply, Petitioner criticizes Respondent’s interpretation of the term “after” as
overly broad, and disputes Respondent’s claim that her initial delay of only one month
undermines her assertion of immediate pain onset. Petitioner’s Reply to Opp. (“Reply”),
filed Oct. 20, 2025, at 3-4, ECF No. 48. She also maintains that her SLAP tear –
characterized as a common, unconnected, and inconsequential condition for a SIRVA,
was asymptomatic, and thus, would not qualify as a viable alternative cause. Id. at 4-5.
She emphasizes that her treating physicians did not mention the SLAP tear as a potential
cause of her symptoms, and her primary care provider (“PCP”) diagnosed her with a
SIRVA. Id. at 4-5 (citing Ex. 2 at 19).
C. Factual Finding Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
A review of the record in this case reveals preponderant evidence sufficient to
establish the required pain onset. Petitioner’s failure to mention any symptoms during the
initial 36 days post-vaccination was reasonable. As I have stated on numerous occasions,
individuals suffering from vaccine-related symptoms will often delay seeking treatment for
at least a few weeks, believing that their symptoms will resolve on their own. Matthews v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1396V, 2024 WL 3026843, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 15, 2024). Thus, this delay is not enough alone to defeat a favorable onset
finding.
Similarly, Petitioner’s description of pain that occurred “after” vaccination, or
“waxed and waned,” does not prevent her from establishing the needed pain onset close-
in-time to vaccination. Petitioner consistently described a concurrent pain onset, and
linked her symptoms to her flu vaccine at appointments thereafter. Ex. 2 at 15, 19, 21;
Ex. 3 at 56, 45 (in chronologic order); Ex. 4 at 28, 31; Ex. 7 at 10. There is preponderant
evidence to show Petitioner’s pain began within 48 hours of vaccination, and she has
satisfied the second QAI criterion.
I also reject Respondent’s contention that evidence of the SLAP tear - which
appears to have been asymptomatic and only discovered during surgery - prevents
Petitioner from satisfying the fourth QAI criterion. Had this condition been the only
potential source for Petitioner’s shoulder pain, or had been identified and/or treater prior
to vaccination, Respondent’s argument would be more persuasive. But the MRI
(performed on January 18, 2021) showed Petitioner suffered from “[m]inimal tendinopathy
at the distal supraspinatus tendon [and] [t]iny partial-thickness intrasubstance tear at the
superior muscular tendinous junction of the subscapularis.” Ex. 4 at 29. These findings
thus revealed a comorbid, sub-acute condition that may have been aggravated by the flu
5

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 6 of 12
vaccine, which was the more likely source of Petitioner’s symptoms and impetus for her
arthroscopic surgery. Ex. 5 at 13, 15-16 (noting tenderness over subacromial space,
failure of conservative treatment, and need for surgery). Although the fact that Petitioner
also had a SLAP tear which was repaired during surgery6 would be relevant to the
question of damages if symptomatic, its presence does not amount to an alternative
explanation absent other evidence corroborating its role.
Respondent has raised no other entitlement objection, and the record contains
sufficient evidence showing Petitioner has satisfied the other QAI criteria. See 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(c)(10)(i) & (iii). There is no evidence of prior left shoulder symptoms or a current
condition. See, generally, Ex. 2 (PCP records). Additionally, Petitioner’s pain and
decreased range of motion were limited to her left shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 38-49
(initial physical therapy (“PT”) session). Thus, all elements of a Table SIRVA claim have
been preponderantly established.
D. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, she need not
prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, she must satisfy the other requirements
of Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of her injury,
and the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D). Respondent
does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the
overall record contains preponderant evidence which fulfills these additional
requirements.
II. Compensation to be Awarded
A. Legal Standards for Pain and Suffering Awards
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 Sections I and II of Staub v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-1611V, 2026 WL 800520, at *1-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
4, 2026).
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
6 During the procedure, the surgeon also observed a “[s]ignificant amount of subacromial and subdeltoid
bursitis” and a “degenerative labral tear . . . anteriorly and superiorly.” Ex. 6 at 16.
6

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 7 of 12
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.7
B. Parties’ Arguments
The parties agree Petitioner should be awarded $1,805.60 for past unreimbursed
expenses. Brief at 1, 17, 29-30; Opp. at 10; Reply at 13. Their only area of disagreement
is the amount of compensation which should be awarded for Petitioner’s past pain and
suffering. Petitioner seeks $140,000.00, and Respondent argues for an award of
$100,000.00. Brief at 1, 17; Opp. at 10, 19, 21; Reply at 13.
Characterizing her SIRVA as “severe and debilitating,” Petitioner insists that “[t]he
medical records in this case paint a clear picture of [her] rapid and severe SIRVA onset,
followed by an extensive course of treatment that has ultimately produced mixed results
and continued suffering.” Brief at 20. She asserts that “[t]he persistence of her symptoms
. . led [her] to receive acute care over the next three years” (id. at 19) – including three
steroid injections, x-rays, an MRI, arthroscopic surgery, and at least 30 physical therapy
(“PT”) sessions (id. at 20-21). Maintaining that she continues to suffer from soreness and
lack of strength (id. at 20), Petitioner contends that “none of the treatments that [she]
received have led to her full recovery” (id. at 21).
Petitioner favorably compares the facts and circumstances in her case to those
experienced by the petitioners in Rafferty, Binette, Dawson-Savard, and Reed8 -
decisions featuring awards ranging from $127,500.00 to $160,000.00, with the Dawson-
Savard and Binette petitioners also receiving future pain and suffering awards. Brief at
23-26. Insisting that her arthroscopic surgery was unsuccessful, she contends that all four
cases offer helpful guidance despite Binette and Dawson-Savard being non-surgical
cases. Id. Petitioner argues that her award should be greater than the $127,500.00
awarded the Rafferty petitioner, as well as what was awarded in multiple other surgical
7 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)).
8 Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1,
2019) (awarding $160,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Binette v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
16-0731V, 2019 WL 1552620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 8, 2019) (awarding $130,000.00 for past pain and
suffering and $1,000.00 per year for future pain and suffering); Dawson-Savard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 17-1238V, 2020 WL 4719291 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 14, 2020) (awarding $130,000.00 for
past pain and suffering and $500.00 per year for future pain and suffering); Rafferty v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2020) (awarding $127,500.00
for past pain and suffering).
7

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 8 of 12
cases (Wallace, Dobbins, Roberson, Stokes, and Drake),9 because she suffered post-
surgical pain levels equivalent to, or even greater than, those experienced by the Reed
petitioner. Brief at 26-27. And Petitioner asserts that the $140,000.00 she requests is in
line with the awards in numerous cases involving an informal agreement between the
parties and the remedial purpose of the Vaccine Act. Id. at 27-29.
To support the lower award which he advocates, Respondent contrasts Petitioner’s
assertions with the evidence provided by the medical records which he insists reveal a
lower symptom severity and duration. Opp. at 11-16. He emphasizes specific findings
observed upon examination and several gaps in treatment when Petitioner returned for
further treatment later than instructed, claiming this shows a milder SIRVA. Id. To
establish a shorter overall duration, Respondent emphasizes the lack of pain and normal
range of motion (“ROM”) Petitioner reported in January 2022,10 less than four months
post-surgery. Opp. at 16.
Furthermore, Respondent attributes some of Petitioner’s pain to unrelated
conditions, such as the SLAP tear repaired during her September 2021 surgery and
Petitioner’s reports of overuse in 2022. Opp. at 15-16. And he discounts Petitioner’s
complaints made in November 2023, noting they occurred after a fifteen-month treatment
gap, were made “during the pendency of this action,” and did not result in any no follow-
up care. Id. at 14.
Respondent distinguishes the cases cited by Petitioner, emphasizing the greater
pain severity and impairment suffered by those petitioners, including those in the surgical
cases involving awards of $125,000.00. Opp. at 16-19. He describes Binette as
particularly “inapposite” because her condition was determined to be permanent and she
“was determined to not be a candidate for surgical intervention.” Id. at 17. Instead,
Respondent proposes Hunt, Shelton, and McCabe11 - featuring awards ranging from
$95,000.00 to $110,000.00.
9 The petitioners were awarded $125,000.00 for past pain and suffering in the following cases: Wallace v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1472V, 2019 WL 4458393 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 27, 2019);
Dobbins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0854V, 2018 WL 4611267 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 15,
2018); Roberson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0090V, 2020 WL 5512542 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 7, 2020); Stokes v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0752V, 2021 WL 16550888 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Dec. 17, 2021); Drake v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1747V, 2020 WL 4674105 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. July 7, 2020).
10 Although Respondent refers to January 2023, rather than 2022, this is clearly due to a simple mistake.
Opp. at 16. He also describes these findings as observed “less than four months after surgery” (id.) and the
medical records show these findings were included in the medical record from a January 2022 visit (see
Ex. 5 at 4).
11 Hunt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16,
2022) (awarding $95,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-
0279V, 2021 WL 4719291 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2021) (awarding $97,500.00 for past pain and
8

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 9 of 12
In her reply, Petitioner reiterates why the facts and circumstances in the cases she
cited are similar to those experienced by Petitioner. Reply at 8-10. She also provides an
additional comparable case, Jacob12 – featuring an award of $120,000.00 - remarking
that the Jacob petitioner experienced an even longer treatment gap of three years before
returning for treatment after filing his claim. Reply at 6-7. Petitioner criticizes the
comparable cases cited by Respondent, noting the initial treatment delay in Shelton was
much longer, approximately five months post-vaccination; and that the pain experienced
by the Hunt and McCabe petitioners was less severe. Id. at 7, 10-12.
C. Appropriate Compensation for 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. In determining appropriate compensation for pain and suffering, I have
carefully reviewed and taken into account the complete record in this case, including, but
not limited to: Petitioner’s medical records, filings, and all assertions made by the parties
in written documents. I have also considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both
SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases, and relied upon my experience adjudicating these
cases. However, my determination is ultimately based upon the specific circumstances
of this case.
The medical records show that Ms. Gooding suffered a moderate SIRVA involving
pain levels ranging from three to six, and almost full, albeit painful, ROM for approximately
five months post-vaccination.13 Although she gained no relief from conservative treatment
(including two steroid injections) through early March 2021,14 she obtained some
suffering); McCabe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1916V, 2021 WL 6755494 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb.1, 2022) (awarding $110,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
12 Jacob v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1997V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 17,
2025).
13 Petitioner initially complained of waxing and waning pain and full, albeit tender, ROM during a visit to her
PCP on November 12, 2020, 36 days post-vaccination. Ex. 2 at 17-21. She consistently reported those
same pain levels and difficulties with ROM during orthopedic visits in January 2021, and her initial PT
evaluation on March 3, 2021. Ex. 3 at 38; Ex. 4 at 18, 21, 28, 31, 34.
14 Petitioner was administered steroid injections by her PCP on November 12, 2020, and her orthopedist
on January 27, 2021. Ex. 2 at 19; Ex. 4 at 22. Between these injections, she was prescribed a Medrol
Dosepak ad Volteran gel. Ex. 4 at 34. Petitioner consistently reported no relief from this treatment. Ex. 4 at
31; Ex. 3 at 45.
9

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 10 of 12
improvement from two months of PT thereafter.15 By her eighth and last PT session, her
pain level was three, and she was assessed as having met approximately 50 percent of
her goals. Ex. 7 at 7.
Following a four-month gap in treatment, Petitioner sought treatment from an
orthopedic surgeon in late August 2021. Ex. 5 at 13-17; see Ex. 9 at ¶ 25 (sworn
declaration explaining Petitioner requested this referral to obtain a second opinion). It was
noted that her pain (assessed as three out of ten) continued but her ROM had improved.
Id. at 13. Although Petitioner’s orthopedist did not believe surgery would be helpful,16 she
discussed this option with the orthopedic surgeon. Ex. 5 at 16.
During the September 22, 2021 surgery - scheduled to repair a small tear of the
supraspinatus - the surgeon also discovered and addressed significant subacromial and
subdeltoid bursitis and a type 1 SLAP tear. Ex. 6 at 15-16; see Ex. 4 at 28 (MRI results).
Following surgery, Petitioner gained significant improvement in pain severity and ROM
while attending 17 PT sessions.17 By a follow-up appointment with her surgeon on March
3, 2022, approximately 17 months post-vaccination and five months post-surgery,
Petitioner reported continued soreness and weakness but no pain and “some mild
persistent subacromial impingement.” Ex. 8 at 1.
When Petitioner returned for further PT in late July 2022, she acknowledged
experiencing “total relief” for four to five months but reported her highest pain levels to
date – currently six to seven and eight to nine at its worst. Ex. 10 at 1. Although she was
assessed as needing one to two sessions for six to twelve weeks (id. at 30), Petitioner
attended only two sessions on July 19 and 22, 2022. See Ex. 10. At both PT sessions,
she attributed her symptoms to physical activity – opening beers and moving a picnic
table. And Petitioner did not visit her orthopedic surgeon again until October 30, 2023,
approximately 15 months later and almost 33 months after the claim’s filing, reporting
15 During eight PT sessions attended from March through April 2021, Petitioner’s pain level quickly
decreased from three to six to no pain by her second PT session. Compare Ex. 3 at 40, 56 with id. at 36. It
then gradually increased to three. Ex. 3 at 32, 24, 20, 12; Ex. 7 at 1, 3, 5 (in chronologic order). And her
limitations in ROM also improved. Ex. 3 at41-42, 25; Ex. 7 at 1, 3, 5-6 (in chronologic order).
16 Observing that Petitioner’s pain “now [wa]s more posterior and lateral right over the area where she had
her previous steroid injection” (Ex. 4 at 18), Petitioner’s initial orthopedist opined that he “d[id] not see
anything surgical on the MRI at this time (id. at 22) However, he recommended “a steroid injection into the
subacromial space and see if a component of her pain is actually coming from the partial-thickness tear in
the subscapularis.” Id.
17 By her 17th PT session, Petitioner’s ROM had improved significantly, and her pain level had decreased
to three. Ex. 7 at 47-49. In her sworn declaration, Petitioner stated that she ceased PT in late December
2021, due to a lack of insurance. Ex. 9 at ¶ 41. However, she also acknowledged feeling better,
experiencing decreased, and sometimes no pain, and little difficulty dressing and showering. Id. at ¶ 39.
10

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 11 of 12
uncomfortable aching pain at a level of two. Ex. 11 at 1. Although the orthopedic surgeon
ordered an MRI, it does not appear that Petitioner pursued this additional testing. Id. at 4.
I do not find the parties’ continued reliance on the following cases to be useful:
Reed, Dawson-Savard, and Binette for Petitioner, and Hunt and Shelton for Respondent.
Due to the severe pain she experienced, the Reed petitioner continued to require
prescription pain medication for years post-surgery. Reed, 2019 WL 1222925, at *8-9.
And the Dawson-Savard and Binette petitioners were assessed as having permanent
disabilities and no surgical option. Dawson-Savard, 2020 WL 4719291, at *3-4; Binette,
2019 WL 1552620, at *8, 13-15. The Shelton petitioner did not seek treatment initially
until five months post-vaccination, and the Hunt petitioner gained significant, albeit
temporary, pain relief from multiple steroid injections. Shelton, 2021 WL 2550093 at *7;
Hunt, 2022 WL 2826662, at *9.
I agree, however, that McCabe, Jacob, and Rafferty - featuring awards of
$110,000.00, $120,000.00, and $127,500.00, respectively - offer helpful guidance. Jacob,
2022 WL 2826662; McCabe, 2021 WL 6755494; Rafferty, 2020 WL 3495956. Because
the Jacobs petitioner experienced the most similar pain levels, also had a SLAP tear likely
responsible for some ongoing symptoms, and complained of continued difficulties but
failed to pursue significant treatment, I find that case to be the closest to Petitioner’s
circumstances. Jacob, 2022 WL 2826662, at *2-3. Thus, I find that Petitioner should
receive a past pain and suffering award of $122,000.00.
Conclusion
For all the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the entire
record, I find that Petitioner’s left shoulder injury meets the definition for a Table
SIRVA. Thus, causation is presumed, and Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this
case. Furthermore, I find that $122,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.18 I also find that Petitioner is
entitled to $1,805.60 in actual unreimbursable expenses.
I therefore award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $123,805.60, 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) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
18 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
11

Case 1:21-vv-01009-UNJ Document 50 Filed 07/09/26 Page 12 of 12
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.19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
19 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.
12