VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01052
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01052
Petitioner: Philip Wisniewski
Filed: 2021-03-11
Decided: 2024-11-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-12
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 116253

AI-assisted case summary:
Philip Wisniewski, a 66-year-old sales manager, filed a petition on March 11, 2021, alleging a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on October 12, 2020. He claimed the injury resulted in residual effects for more than six months. The respondent conceded entitlement on July 26, 2023, agreeing that Mr. Wisniewski's injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, noting he had no prior left shoulder issues, the pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, was limited to the injection site, and no other condition explained the pain. The case proceeded to a damages hearing as the parties could not agree on compensation. Mr. Wisniewski sought $125,000 for pain and suffering and $1,253.10 for unreimbursable medical expenses, citing cases involving surgery for SIRVA. The respondent proposed $82,500 for pain and suffering, arguing Mr. Wisniewski had a relatively mild-to-moderate injury and achieved good recovery after surgery. The medical history indicated that Mr. Wisniewski received the flu vaccine in his left shoulder on October 12, 2020. He experienced intermittent discomfort and loss of range of motion in his left shoulder. An x-ray revealed moderate to advanced arthritis in his AC joint. He was diagnosed with left shoulder vaccine-induced rotator cuff tendinitis/bursitis. He underwent physical therapy and received a corticosteroid injection. An MRI showed a small partial-thickness tear of the left infraspinatus tendon and moderate AC joint arthritis. He underwent left shoulder arthroscopy on March 22, 2021. Post-operative physical therapy showed significant improvement, and by July 2021, he reported 85-90% improvement. He continued to experience some residual pain and limited range of motion. In his declaration, he stated he is still unable to sleep on his left side due to pain and experiences about 20% less strength and range of motion compared to his right side, affecting activities like fly fishing and playing with his grandsons. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, awarded Mr. Wisniewski $115,000 for pain and suffering and $1,253.10 for unreimbursable medical expenses, totaling $116,253.10. The Special Master noted that while Mr. Wisniewski's injury required surgery, it was on the milder end of comparable cases, and his pre-existing moderate-to-advanced arthritis in the AC joint may have also contributed to his symptoms. The decision was issued on November 8, 2024. Petitioner counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent counsel was Sarah Black Rifkin.

Theory of causation field:
Philip Wisniewski, age 66, received an influenza vaccination on October 12, 2020. He alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and residual effects for more than six months. The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing the injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, citing no prior shoulder issues, pain within 48 hours of vaccination, pain localized to the injection site, and no other identified condition explaining the pain. The Special Master, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, awarded $115,000 for pain and suffering and $1,253.10 for unreimbursable medical expenses, totaling $116,253.10, in a decision dated November 8, 2024. The Special Master found the injury to be on the milder end of SIRVA cases requiring surgery, noting the presence of pre-existing moderate-to-advanced AC joint arthritis which may have contributed to symptoms. Petitioner counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent counsel was Sarah Black Rifkin.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01052-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-09-26
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/26/2023) regarding 30 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1052V
PHILIP WISNIEWSKI, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 26, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 11, 2021, Philip Wisniewski 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 he suffered a Table shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination
received on October 12, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered
the residual effects of his injury for more than six months after vaccination. Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 26, 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 states that “petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 2
as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within
48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in
which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been
identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that
“petitioner suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months.” Id.
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-01052-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-08
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/04/2024) regarding 49 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 55 Filed 11/08/24 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1052V
PHILIP WISNIEWSKI,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: October 4, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 11, 2021, Philip Wisniewski 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received to his left
shoulder on October 12, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
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-01052-UNJ Document 55 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 8
Although Petitioner has been found entitled to compensation, the parties could not
agree on the damages to be awarded, and therefore the matter was scheduled for a
“Motions Day” proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, and after hearing argument
from the parties, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of
$115,000.00 for his actual pain and suffering, plus $1,253.10 for unreimbursable medical
expenses.
I. Procedural History
As stated above, on July 26, 2023, I issued a ruling on entitlement in favor of
Petitioner. ECF No. 30. But the parties were unable to agree on an appropriate amount
to award Mr. Wisniewski for his pain and suffering and unreimbursable expenses, and
therefore agreed to brief the issue. ECF Nos. 37-38. On March 22, 2024, Petitioner filed
his brief in support of damages (“Mot.”), and Respondent filed a Response on May 21,
2024 (“Opp.”). Petitioner filed a reply (“Reply”) memorandum on June 20, 2024. ECF Nos.
40-41, 43. I heard arguments from both parties during a Motions’ Day Damages hearing
held on September 20, 2024.
II. Relevant Medical History
A complete recitation of the facts can be found in the Petition, affidavits, the parties’
respective pre-hearing filings, and in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report.
In brief summary, Mr. Wisniewski was a 66-year-old sales manager employed by
a plumbing supply company at the time he received the flu vaccine in his left shoulder at
Kinney Drugs on October 12, 2020. Ex. 1 at 1-2. His past medical history is unremarkable
for any type of left shoulder pain or dysfunction. Ex. 2 at 7; Ex. 3 at 4.
One month later, on November 13, 2020, Mr. Wisniewski saw his primary care
provider, Dr. MichaelTreisman, for a telehealth visit. Ex. 4 at 214. He reported intermittent
discomfort and loss of range of motion (“ROM”), which was significant at times, in his left
shoulder since receiving the flu vaccine. Id. Dr. Treisman suggested an orthopedic referral
if Petitioner’s symptoms did not significantly improve with ice, heat, and Voltaren gel. Id.
at 216.
The week after, on November 20, 2020, Mr. Wisniewski visited the orthopedic clinic
at Washington University in St. Louis, where he saw physician’s assistant Joseph Scerba,
P.A. Ex. 3 at 4. Petitioner described “an aching sensation” in his left shoulder, “with
occasional sharp pains.” Id. He exhibited full strength (5/5), but with a reduced ROM. Id.
at 5-6. An x-ray revealed “moderate to advanced” arthritis in Petitioner’s AC joint. Id. at 6.
PA Scerba documented “[l]eft shoulder vaccine induced rotator cuff tendinitis/bursitis” and
2

Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 55 Filed 11/08/24 Page 3 of 8
suggested conservative remedies, including icing, activity modification, physical therapy
(“PT”), and a course of meloxicam. Id. at 6-7.
Mr. Wisniewski began a course of PT on December 2, 2020, to treat both his
chronic back pain and his left shoulder symptoms. Ex. 8 at 42. At his initial evaluation,
Petitioner reported that he had recovered some strength in his left shoulder but was still
experiencing pain at rest (4/10) and with sudden movement (8/10). Id. He was able to
work, drive, and complete daily tasks, although he reported difficulty doing work in the
yard, raking leaves, and gardening. Id. Four weeks of twice-weekly PT was
recommended. Id. at 48.
Petitioner underwent an MRI on December 22, 2020, which a small partial-
thickness tear of the left infraspinatus tendon and moderate AC joint arthritis. Ex. 3 at 23.
On December 29, 2020, Mr. Wisniewski received an ultrasound guided corticosteroid
injection to his left subacromial space. Id. at 12.
Mr. Wisniewski attended 10 PT sessions through December 30, 2020. Ex. 2 at 86.
At his final session, Petitioner rated his shoulder pain at a 3/10 (6/10 at worst and with
sudden movement) and reported that he still could not sleep on his left side due to pain.
Id. He stated that he was “able to do more housework and light yard work,” and felt
confident performing his home exercises. Id. Petitioner had made “[s]ome progress” over
the course of 10 sessions, but he elected to discontinue PT “due to the new year and not
wanting to pay for therapy.” Id. at 89.
Petitioner reported experiencing a “75% improve[ment]” in his shoulder symptoms
for about one month following receipt of the steroid injection on December 29, 2020. See
Ex. 7 at 403. However, his pain returned by late-January 2021 and Petitioner expressed
frustration with his progress. See id. Mr. Wisniewski consulted an orthopedic surgeon,
and on March 22, 2021, he underwent left shoulder arthroscopy. Ex. 3 at 16, 20. The
post-operative diagnosis was “left shoulder low-grade partial-thickness rotator cuff tear,
subacromial bursitis.” Id. at 20.
At his first post-operative appointment on March 30, 2021, Mr. Wisniewski reported
“doing well” and was “surprised by how much [] he [was] able to move his arm.” Ex. 3 at
19. His pain was “well controlled,” and he exhibited “[f]ull range of motion.” Id.
Petitioner began a course of post-operative PT on April 1, 2021. Ex. 2 at 97. By
June 10, 2021, Mr. Wisniewski reported “85-90%” improvement in his symptoms, with
“minimal to no pain most of the time.” Ex. at 38. He had “return[ed] to normal activities
such as yard work.” Id.
3

Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 55 Filed 11/08/24 Page 4 of 8
Mr. Wisniewski completed 24 post-operative PT sessions and was discharged on
July 16, 2021. Ex. 8 at 189-90. He had met 90% of his PT goals, with only mild residual
pain (0-3/10) and some difficulty lifting his grandchildren. Id. at 190. There are no records
of any treatment after July 2021.
In his most recent declaration (dated March 18, 2024), Mr. Wisniewski explained
that he is still unable to sleep on his left side due to pain. Ex. 16. He reported that he
continues to experience limited range of motion of his left shoulder “that is approximately
20% less than my right side. In general, my left shoulder is about 20% weaker than my
right side for all daily activities.” Id. at 1. Mr. Wisniewski explained that his left shoulder
still bothers him when he goes fly fishing, an activity that he loves. Id. He stated that he
still needs to take pain medications after he plays catch with his grandsons due to the
pain in his left shoulder. Id.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
a. Petitioner
In his brief, Mr. Wisniewski explained that he “suffered severely” from his vaccine
injury, which necessitated surgery after all conservative treatment measures aimed at
controlling his pain had failed. Mot. at 11. He states that even though the surgery was
ultimately successful, the treatment still caused him considerable pain and the need for
aggressive physical therapy after surgery was completed. Id. at 11-13. Petitioner argues
that based on the facts and circumstances of his case, he is entitled to an award of
$125,000.00 in past pain and suffering and $1,253.10, for his out-of-pocket expenses. Id.
at 12.
Petitioner cited to three cases in support of his claim for past pain and suffering:
(1) Nute v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0140V, 2019 WL 6125008 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Sept. 6, 2019), and (2) Rafferty v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-
1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2020), (3) Wirges v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1670, 2024 WL 1509385, *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
5, 2024). Petitioners were awarded $125,000.00, $127,500.00, and $115,000.00,
respectively, for their past pain and suffering.3
b. Respondent
Respondent has argued that Petitioner’s SIRVA was “relatively mild-to-moderate”
and that comparable cases confirm demonstrate Respondent’s valuation of damages in
3 Petitioner also cites to five other cases in his brief (without discussion) as examples of other surgery cases
in the Program with similar facts that have received an award of $125,000.00 in pain and suffering.
4

Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 55 Filed 11/08/24 Page 5 of 8
the amount of $82,500.00 for past pain and suffering is “fair and in line with prior cases.”
Opp. at 8. Respondent has argued that Petitioner achieved good recovery after surgery,
just a total of nine months after vaccination. Opp. at 4. Respondent also argued that there
was an initial delay when Petitioner first sought care for his shoulder injury, and that he
“consistently reported improvements through his course of treatment.” Opp. at 5. By July
2021, Respondent noted that Petitioner reported a “90% improvement in his symptoms,”
and that he returned to normal activities such as yard work just nine months after
vaccination. Opp at 6. And Respondent noted that Petitioner has not sought any
additional treatment since that time. Id.
Respondent distinguished the three cases cited by Petitioner, contending that
these “decisions involved more severe injuries or unique fact patterns that are not
comparable to petitioner’s case.” Opp. at 6. In the present case, Petitioner reported mostly
mild levels of pain, and suffered no impacts to his work, lifestyle, or ability to care for
family members. Opp. at 6-8.
In support of his proposed award, Respondent cites to the Shelton v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0279V, 2021 WL 2550093, *8, n. 12 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
May 21, 2021), and Hunt v. Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2022). Opp. at 8-10. These are two surgical cases in which
petitioners were awarded $95,000.00 and $97,500.00 in pain and suffering, respectively.
Id. Respondent argues that these are the more appropriate comparable cases, and that
Petitioner should be awarded less – not more – than $95,000.00. Opp. at 9.
IV. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include an award “[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). Additionally, a petitioner may
recover “actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment award
such expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). 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).
There is no precise formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and
suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“Awards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
5

Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 55 Filed 11/08/24 Page 6 of 8
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation”). 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. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (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)).
A special master may also look to prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the
resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in each case.
See, e.g., Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding
that “there is nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages
for pain and suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount
of damages in this case.”). And, of course, a special master may rely on his or her own
experience adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d
958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated the special masters would
use their accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of
individual claims). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering
is not determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
V. Appropriate Compensation in this SIRVA Case
a. Awareness of Suffering
Neither party disputes that that Mr. Wisniewski had full awareness of his suffering,
and I find that fact is supported by the record evidence.
b. Severity and Duration of Pain and Suffering
As I noted during the hearing, Mr. Wisniewski’s case is a SIRVA injury that required
surgical intervention. The three cases cited by Petitioner are good and reasonable
comparable cases, involving surgery and similar treatment lengths. However, there are a
few distinguishing factors that warrant a slightly lesser award than those awarded in Nute,
Rafferty, and Wirges. In those prior cases, the claimants’ injuries could be seen to have
negatively impacted their lives in specific ways, such as making it difficult to care for young
twin toddlers, to work, or obligating a schoolteacher to undergo a difficult treatment
course. While each case filed in the Program is different, those unique circumstances in
the cases cited by Petitioner are not present in this case.
Conversely, however, Respondent’s cited cases of Hunt and Shelton are not useful
comparables for this matter. It has previously been noted that both stand as “outlier
6

Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 55 Filed 11/08/24 Page 7 of 8
determinations, and rare instances of deviating from the above $100,000.00 ‘norm’ for
SIRVA cases involving surgery.” Laurette v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-
1047V, 2024 WL 1741611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 25, 2024); see also, e.g.,
Olson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0408V, 2024 WL 1521634, at *4 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 4, 2024) (characterizing the cases as “outliers in the context of SIRVA
damages”); Gao v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1884V, 2023 WL 6182455, at
*3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 18, 2023) (emphasizing that Hunt and Shelton were “sui
generis instances of a sub-six figure award in SIRVA cases featuring surgery”). “In short,
the policy goals of the Vaccine Program are best served if outcomes in common cases
(like SIRVA vaccine injury claims) are predictable and/or subject to some uniformity – and
it has been my determination that surgery cases reasonably present a degree of suffering
justifying a six-figure award. (Otherwise, adjustments are always considered and made
to account for the facts of each case, and in some instances even SIRVA surgery cases
result in lower pain and suffering awards).” Richardson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 20-0674V, 2023 WL 6180813, at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 16, 2023).
Mr. Wisniewski’s SIRVA appears to be somewhat on the mild end of the spectrum
of comparable cases requiring surgery – but not so exceptional to warrant a departure
below the six-figure norm (and certainly not in the range of Respondent's proposal of
$82,500.00). Although Mr. Wisniewski describes the ongoing pain and weakness in his
left shoulder, as well as how his injury has affected his ability to play ball with his
grandsons and engage in fly fishing, he is still able to engage in these activities. In
addition, while his medical history does not make any specific mention of left shoulder
complaints in the three years prior to vaccination, his x-ray taken on November 20, 2020,
revealed that there was already moderate-to-advanced arthritis in Petitioner’s left AC
joint, which likely also contributed, or would have contributed, to his ability to engage in
these activities. Ex. 3 at 6. Based on all of the circumstances and evidence submitted,
and in the interest of rough justice, I find that his past pain and suffering warrants an
award of $115,000.00.
The parties agree on the amount to be awarded to Mr. Wisniewski for his out-of-
pocket unreimburseable expenses, and I find that all his requested expenses are
reasonable and directly related to his SIRVA injury, and thus, award the full amount
requested of $1,253.10.
CONCLUSION
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that $115,000.00
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
7

Case 1:21-vv-01052-UNJ Document 55 Filed 11/08/24 Page 8 of 8
pain and suffering.4 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to $1,253.10, in actual
unreimbursable expenses.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $116,253.10, in the
form of a check payable 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.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 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)).
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
8