VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01421 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01421 Petitioner: Kimberly Wilcox Filed: 2021-06-02 Decided: 2025-09-10 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2020-09-17 Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 117500 AI-assisted case summary: On June 2, 2021, Kimberly Wilcox, then 54, filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered in her left arm on September 17, 2020 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. The damages record gave a fuller account of the injury. Before vaccination, the record did not show recent left shoulder complaints, although she had been prescribed Naproxen for back pain. Eleven days after vaccination, she saw her primary-care provider for constant throbbing left shoulder pain that was not relieved by home treatment, with tenderness, limited range of motion, and positive impingement findings. Orthopedic care followed. She received steroid injections, an x-ray, ultrasound, MRI arthrogram, and physical therapy. Imaging showed mild infraspinatus tendinosis, bursitis or strain-type findings, and degenerative changes; later orthopedic records described chronic pain, biceps tendinitis, bursitis, and failed conservative care. Ms. Wilcox underwent left shoulder surgery on February 24, 2022, including rotator cuff debridement, biceps tenodesis, subacromial decompression, and related procedures. She described night pain, limits on exercise and crocheting, difficulty with daily activities, and disruption to her work as a landscape designer. Respondent argued that the injury was more limited and proposed $93,000.00, while Ms. Wilcox sought a higher amount based on surgery and the duration of pain. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found entitlement on July 19, 2024. On September 10, 2025, he awarded $117,500.00 for pain and suffering, with no separate unreimbursed expenses. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine September 17, 2020 at age 54 causing left SIRVA; first documented shoulder visit 11 days later. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED; COMPENSATED. Record showed constant throbbing pain, tenderness, limited ROM, positive impingement, injections, ultrasound/x-ray/MRI, PT, chronic biceps tendinitis/bursitis, and February 24, 2022 surgery with rotator cuff debridement, biceps tenodesis, and subacromial decompression. Award $117,500 pain/suffering. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition June 2, 2021; entitlement July 19, 2024; damages September 10, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01421-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-19 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/19/2024) regarding 44 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/19/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1421V KIMBERLY WILCOX, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: July 19, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On June 2, 2021, Kimberly Wilcox 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received in her left deltoid on September 17, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 12, 2024, 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 5 – 6 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)). 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-01421-UNJ Document 46 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 2 Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 6. 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-01421-cl-extra-10734480 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-19 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267890 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1421V KIMBERLY WILCOX, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: July 19, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On June 2, 2021, Kimberly Wilcox 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received in her left deltoid on September 17, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 12, 2024, 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 5 – 6 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)). 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). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 6. 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 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01421-1 Date issued/filed: 2025-10-10 Pages: 9 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/10/2025) regarding 54 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 1 of 9 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1421V KIMBERLY WILCOX, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: September 10, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On June 2, 2021, Kimberly Wilcox 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 17, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Respondent conceded entitlement in July 2024, but the parties could not agree on damages – specifically past pain and suffering – and have submitted that issue for my 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-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 2 of 9 resolution. Brief filed Jan. 4, 2025 (ECF No. 50); Response filed Feb. 26, 2025 (ECF No. 52); Reply filed Mar. 28, 2025 (ECF No. 53). The matter is ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, I find that Petitioner is entitled to past pain and suffering damages of $117,500.00. I. Authority In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be considered in determining SIRVA damages, taking into account prior compensation determinations within SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections I and II of I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections I and II of Matthews v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. 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.” Section 15(a)(4). The petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18, 1996). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of the suffering.3 II. Evidence Upon receiving the at-issue vaccine in her left arm on September 17, 2020 (Ex. 6 at 10), Petitioner was 54 years old, with no recent history of left shoulder pain or dysfunction. See generally Ex. 6 at 1 – 60. She had been prescribed Naproxen for low back pain, but she could not bear the costs of physical therapy (“PT”). Ex. 6 at 45, 58, 70. Eleven days post-vaccination, on September 28, 2020, Petitioner returned to her primary care physician (“PCP”) complaining of post-vaccination left shoulder pain. Ex. 6 at 60. The pain was “rather constant, throbbing sometimes… not much relieved with Naproxen.” Id. On physical examination, her shoulder was tender, with limited range of motion (“ROM”) and positive impingement signs. Id. at 63. The PCP tentatively diagnosed 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)). 2 Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 3 of 9 rotator cuff tendinopathy, to be managed with Naproxen, over-the-counter Tylenol, rest, and formal PT (which Petitioner declined). Id. at 69. At an October 1, 2020 orthopedics initial consult, Petitioner reported that her left shoulder had “shooting pain at times, constant dull ache, [and] limited ROM” with no relief from Naproxen.4 Ex. 3 at 38, 42. An exam found tenderness, “restricted and painful” ROM, and a positive painful arc at the rotator cuff. Id. at 43. An x-ray’s findings were unremarkable. Id. Opining that Petitioner’s flu vaccination had likely “irritated” her shoulder resulting in disuse and stiffness, the orthopedics physician’s assistant (“PA”) assessed impingement syndrome and adhesive capsulitis, administered a steroid injection to “help with ROM improvement,” and provided a home exercise program (“HEP”). Id. at 43-44. At a December 2, 2020 orthopedics follow-up appointment, Petitioner reported that her shoulder pain had “returned about 2 weeks ago” (thereby implying about six weeks of pain relief from the steroid injection). Ex. 3 at 28. Petitioner also complained of weakness and limited ROM. Id. An exam found “full” ROM but pain on abduction and external rotation, and positive painful arc and Hawkins tests. Id. at 29. Opining that the injury had been “unresponsive” to the steroid injection and HEP, the orthopedics PA ordered an MRI to assess for a rotator cuff tear. Id. at 30. The December 9, 2020 left shoulder MRI found mild infraspinatus tendinosis; mild strain of the musculotendinous junction; mild subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis; mild AC joint arthritis; and a “lobulated serpiginous foci” in the supraclavicular and peri-clavicular fat. Ex. 3 at 26; see also id. at 20 (Dec. 17, 2020 chest x-ray confirming that this “foci” was a supraclavicular arteriovenous malformation (“AVM”)); but see Ex. 2 at 5, 29 (vascular surgeon’s evaluation in February – March 2021, and conclusion that the AVM was “artifact,” and there was no evidence of thoracic outlet syndrome or other vascular condition). On December 11, 2020, Petitioner reported ongoing “sharp pain with lifting and throbbing” at her shoulder, and the orthopedics PA administered a second steroid injection. Ex. 3 at 22-24. In late March 2021, Petitioner notified the orthopedics PA that her “pain ha[d] started again” (again implying temporary relief from the recent steroid injection), and she requested a referral to formal PT. Ex. 3 at 12 – 13. At the March 30, 2021 PT initial 44 Of note, Petitioner’s Brief at 8 states that her treatment efforts included Meloxicam – but the undersigned did not find evidence of that prescription. Petitioner may have intended to refer to her usage of the preexisting prescription for Naproxen. 3 Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 4 of 9 evaluation, Petitioner’s chief complaints were with housework, sleeping, lifting, reaching behind her back and overhead. Ex. 3 at 9. The exam found painful and limited ROM (active flexion 160 degrees and abduction 130 degrees; passive flexion and abduction 170 degrees; external rotation 50 degrees; horizontal adduction 80 degrees), 3+/5 strength; severe difficulty reaching overhead; and abnormal findings on numerous tests (apprehension, Hawkins-Kennedy, Neer’s, etc.). Id. at 10. The therapist recommended formal sessions twice a week for eight weeks – but noted: “POC [plan of care] may be limited by pt’s reported financial difficulties.” Id. at 11. Afterwards the PT treatment plan was seemingly approved by the orthopedics PA and the insurance plan, id. at 6 – 7, but on April 17, 2021, the physical therapy clinic recorded they had been “unable to contact patient after 3 attempts,” id. at 5. At a May 5, 2021 orthopedics follow-up, Petitioner reported: “[P]ain all the time to her shoulder… at night she cannot sleep due to the pain… rate[d] 4/10… attending therapy twice a week.” Ex. 3 at 2; but see id. at 5 (indicating that Petitioner was not attending formal PT, and she could not be reached by the clinic). The orthopedics PA’s exam confirmed an ongoing injury, for which she administered a third steroid injection and recommended Petitioner that “continu[e] with HEP and PT” before potentially resorting to arthroscopic surgery. Ex. 3 at 4. After a nine-month gap in medical record documentation (for any subject), on February 7, 2022, Petitioner was evaluated by an orthopedic surgeon. Ex. 8 at 18.5 Petitioner reported a chief complaint of left shoulder pain that was “chronic… started more than 1 year ago… no history of extremity trauma… occurs constantly… unchanged… aching… 9/10… severe… inability to bear weight and limited range of motion… aggravated by lying down and activity… NSAIDs and movement… provided no relief.” Id. Physical exam of the left shoulder found tenderness on palpation; full ROM with pain overhead; 5/5 strength; and positive drop arm, Speed’s, O’Brien’s, Hawkin’s and resisted external rotation tests. Id. at 20 – 21. The orthopedic surgeon assessed Petitioner with biceps tendinitis and bursitis, which conditions had “failed conservative management” despite “temporary relief” from injections, and warranted surgical intervention. Id. at 21. Two days later, upon clearing Petitioner for that surgery, the PCP recorded that she had been “doing well except for her left shoulder pain.” Ex. 6 at 93. On February 24, 2022, Petitioner underwent general anesthesia and open surgery – specifically consisting of an open rotator cuff debridement; biceps tenodesis; subacromial decompression with coraco-acromial ligament release; bone marrow 5 The February 7, 2022 orthopedics record (Ex. 8 at 18) provides that Petitioner had been referred by her PCP, and that this was a “F/U” [follow-up] visit. However, no additional records have been filed. 4 Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 5 of 9 aspirate harvest; and subacromial injection with autologous progenitor cells. Additionally, a “finger sweep of the cuff revealed significant adhesions which were broken up.” The post-operative diagnose were left rotator cuff tendinitis; biceps tenosynovitis; subacromial bursitis; and impingement syndrome. Ex. 8 at 34 – 35. That same day, Petitioner was discharged home with prescriptions for clindamycin and hydrocodone-acetaminophen. Id. at 38. No further orthopedic records have been filed. Upon starting post-operative PT on March 31, 2022, Petitioner reported that her left shoulder injury had begun with a flu shot 1.5 years ago. Ex. 7 at 35. Her pain was currently 2/10 and ranged from 1-9/10 (but no current pain medications were documented). Id. Her ROM included 74 degrees active/ 89 degrees passive flexion, and 59 degrees active/ 64 degrees passive abduction. Id. at 36. Her strength was 3+/5 and painful. Id. Petitioner was noted to be back at work (as a landscape designer, which included driving and “computer work”) with difficulty with almost all activities involving her left arm. Ex. 7 at 36-37; see also id. at 54 (upper extremity functional index with a score of 34/80 – with a full score representing no difficulties). The physical therapist planned formal sessions twice a week for eight weeks, plus a HEP. Id. at 37, 34. Petitioner reported 0/10 pain prior to, and 4/10 pain after, her second formal PT session on April 13, 2022. Ex. 7 at 19. She was “ahead of schedule” in her recovery, and received an “upgraded” HEP on that date. Id. at 20. At a third and final post-operative PT session on April 20, 2022, Petitioner reported feeling “fine,” doing most of her exercises, and hurting upon bringing her arm towards her stomach. Ex. 7 at 5. She tolerated additional exercises well; the record does not include objective exam findings. Id. at 5-7. After Petitioner failed to return, her PT chart was closed five months later. Ex. 7 at 7; see also Ex. 6 at 101-115 (PCP records not referencing the shoulder, from August and November 2022). The only other item of evidence offered relevant to the present determination is Petitioner’s statement sworn under penalty of perjury on May 3, 2021. Ex. 1.6 She describes in it residing with her fiancée and working as a landscape and pool designer. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3. In recounting her SIRVA, Petitioner states that she avoided in-person medical treatment due to COVID-19 concerns, and that she attempted to alleviate her pain with home remedies. Id. at ¶¶ 19 – 20. She reported pain of 2/10 “at best,” 4-6/10 typically, and sometimes flaring up to 10/10. Id. at ¶ 21. The pain made it difficult to perform activities of daily living, sleep, and hobbies including crocheting. Id. at ¶ 22. Of 6 Because Petitioner’s statement at Ex. 1 is not notarized, it is not properly termed an affidavit. But it is entitled to “like force and effect” pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. 5 Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 6 of 9 note, Petitioner prepared this declaration two days before receiving her third steroid injection (on May 5, 2021) so it does not address her subsequent treatment gap, surgery, and recovery. 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 her awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the injury’s severity and duration. 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 thorough review of the evidence establishes that Kimberly Wilcox’s SIRVA involved moderately-significant initial pain which was not alleviated by Naproxen (previously prescribed for her chronic back pain), prompting formal medical evaluation just 11 days post-vaccination. Petitioner characterized the initial pain as significant and constant. She also displayed ROM losses and impingement within the first two months, and persisting over time. There is also medical record evidence corroborating Petitioner’s conclusion that she could not afford formal PT – for either her preexisting back pain or her SIRVA. The documented financial concerns help to explain Petitioner’s repeated attempts at home exercise, and the absence of formal PT from the record. The gaps in other treatment of the shoulder are also partially explained. In early 2021, orthopedists temporarily deferred care for Petitioner pending evaluation by a vascular surgeon – who ruled out potential alternative explanations for Petitioner’s shoulder complaints. There is also evidence that each of the three steroid injections – in October 2020, December 2020, and May 2021 – relieved Petitioner’s pain temporarily. The longest treatment gap running from May 2021 – February 2022 may be explained by a combination of steroid injection pain relief, plus Petitioner’s desire to postpone the only other treatment option offered – surgical intervention (although the gap in medical records, and lack of other evidence from Petitioner or supporting witnesses, also suggests a somewhat more tolerable injury than the ”10/10” pain she reported upon returning to the orthopedist in February 2022). 6 Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 7 of 9 The eventual surgical intervention on Petitioner’s shoulder also demonstrates an ongoing severe injury - given that the orthopedists had concluded that less invasive treatment efforts had failed. The surgery was also open and fairly extensive (not merely manipulation, or arthroscopic procedures), requiring general (not local) anesthesia. Petitioner’s surgical intervention was fortunately successful, as evidenced by her very swift recovery with just three post-operative PT sessions, leading to the end of formal treatment on April 20, 2022 – roughly nineteen (19) months post-vaccination. And Petitioner has not alleged unique impacts on employment (which involves driving and computer work) or personal life (e.g., any obligations to dependent family members) which might have enhanced pain and suffering. Overall, my instinct is to award close to the $100,000.00 baseline for past pain and suffering in SIRVA surgery cases here – and I appreciate that both parties are somewhat close to that figure. Respondent proposes just $93,000.00, arguing that Ms. Wilcox’s past pain and suffering was comparable, or slightly less significant, than that seen in Hunt. Response at 10-11.7 On reply while seeking to distinguish Hunt, Petitioner inaccurately states that she herself only received “two weeks of relief” from the first steroid injection. Reply at 1- 2. But Petitioner’s medical records reflect that the injection was administered on October 1, 2020 (Ex. 3 at 38-44), and the pain “returned about two weeks” prior to her orthopedics follow-up appointment on December 2, 2020 (Ex. 3 at 28) – meaning that the first steroid injection was effective for six weeks. Accord Ex. 3 at 22-24, 12-13 (suggesting similar relief from the second steroid injection). Otherwise, however, the record shows that Petitioner began treating her SIRVA more promptly (with the preexisting prescription for Naproxen, and the first evaluation at the 11-day mark, compared to 18 days in the Hunt case). Moreover, her financial concerns help to explain the lack of formal PT prior to surgery; her surgery was more invasive (the surgery in Hunt was arthroscopic); and the same number of steroid injections were relevant (as the Hunt petitioner’s fourth steroid injection, after a significant treatment gap, was not factored into the SIRVA damages award). I recognize Respondent’s (repeated) impulse to cite to Hunt in favor of a lower award, but that case is ultimately not instructive here.8 7 Citing 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). 8 Respondent’s citation to Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.19-0279V, 2021 WL 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2021 ($97,500.00), in the Response at 9, is even less helpful – particularly because of the Shelton petitioner’s five-month initial treatment delay, which heavily influenced then-Chief Special Master Dorsey’s valuation of the case. 7 Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 8 of 9 Another one of Respondent’s cited cases, Moore, is more helpful. Response at 9.9 The similarities include the initial medical documentation of a shoulder injury (10 days post-vaccination in Moore, compared to 11 days here); somewhat unexplained treatment gaps (an early four-month gap in Moore, and the later nine-month gap not fully explained by a steroid injection here); a good response to surgery; and overall duration of injury (15 months in Moore, 19 months here). The Moore petitioner’s low pain ratings and just one steroid injection, but more extensive PT, seems roughly comparable to Ms. Wilcox’s three steroid injections and explanation that PT was financially burdensome. Petitioner also identified some parallels with Collado – specifically the prompt documentation (14 days post-vaccination in Collado, 11 days here); high pain ratings; financial concerns explaining the deferral of formal PT; and “extensive and invasive surgery.” Brief at 10 – 11.10 Respondent accurately notes that Collado concerned a single mother who relied on her ex-sister-in-law to complete basic household chores and shop for groceries. Response at 12. Those circumstances may have influenced then-Chief Special Master Dorsey’s pain and suffering award (although it is not specifically emphasized in her analysis). Collado, 2018 WL 3433352 at *6-8. While Ms. Wilcox has not described any comparable compelling circumstances, she received two additional steroid injections, and her overall duration of injury was longer – even when factoring in the treatment gap prior to her surgery. Based on consideration of the record evidence, the above comparisons, and my overall experience with SIRVAs, I find that a fair and appropriate award for past pain and suffering in this case is $117,500.00. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record, Petitioner is awarded a lump sum of $117,500.00 (for past pain and suffering)11 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for 9 Moore v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1850V, 2022 WL 962524 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 25, 2022) ($115,000.00) 10 Citing Collado v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0225V, 2018 WL 3433352 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 6, 2018) (awarding $120,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2020 WL 5512534 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2020) ($120,000.00). 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 & 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)). 8 Case 1:21-vv-01421-UNJ Document 60 Filed 10/10/25 Page 9 of 9 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.12 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 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. 9 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01421-cl-extra-11233182 Date issued/filed: 2025-12-30 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10766597 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1421V KIMBERLY WILCOX, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 24, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On June 2, 2021, Kimberly Wilcox 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following an influenza vaccine she received on September 17, 2020. Petition, ECF No. 1. On July 19, 2024, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding Petitioner 1Because 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). entitled to compensation. ECF No. 44. On September 10, 2025, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner following briefing by the parties. ECF No. 54. Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $34,738.74 (representing $33,726.60 in fees plus $1,012.14 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed September 30, 2025, ECF No. 58. Furthermore, counsel for Petitioner represents that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 58 at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on October 7, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 59. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request and find a reduction in the amount of fees to be awarded appropriate, for the reason listed below. ANALYSIS The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Counsel must submit fee requests that include contemporaneous and specific billing records indicating the service performed, the number of hours expended on the service, and the name of the person performing the service. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316-18 (2008). Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). It is “well within the special master’s discretion to reduce the hours to a number that, in [her] experience and judgment, [is] reasonable for the work done.” Id. at 1522. Furthermore, the special master may reduce a fee request sua sponte, apart from objections raised by respondent and without providing a petitioner notice and opportunity to respond. See Sabella v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 86 Fed. Cl. 201, 209 (2009). A special master need not engage in a line-by-line analysis of petitioner’s fee application when reducing fees. Broekelschen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 719, 729 (2011). The petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl. 2 Ct. 482, 484 (1991). The Petitioner “should present adequate proof [of the attorney’s fees and costs sought] at the time of the submission.” Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484 n.1. Petitioner’s counsel “should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. ATTORNEY FEES I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations and are hereby awarded herein. However, numerous tasks performed by attorneys Jonathan Svitak, Patrick Anderson, and Elizabeth Hess in this matter are more properly billed using a paralegal rate. 3 “Tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or a legal assistant should not be billed at an attorney’s rate.” Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). “[T]he rate at which such work is compensated turns not on who ultimately performed the task but instead turns on the nature of the task performed.” Doe/11 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. XX-XXXXV, 2010 WL 529425, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 29, 2010). Although these billing entries reflect reasonably performed tasks, they must be charged at a reduced rate comparable to that of a paralegal. In evaluating a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, special masters “need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011). Instead, in appropriate circumstances they may make reasonable, across-the-board percentage adjustments. Here, such an overall percentage cut is reasonable, and preferrable to a time- consuming line-by-line review of the bill. I therefore reduce the total fees to be awarded herein by five percent as a fair adjustment to account for the paralegal duties issue 3 Entries considered paralegal in nature include drafting requests for medical records, following up on medical records requests, and drafting basic documents such as an exhibit list, PAR questionnaire, notice of filing, notice of intent, statement of completion, cover sheet, joint notice not to seek review. Entries that include paralegal tasks billed at an attorney rate include, but are not limited to, the following: 6/2/2021 (4 entries), 1/28/2022, 10/18/2023, 10/25/2023, 11/2/2023, 11/14/2023, 11/27/2023, 11/28/2023, 12/11/2023 (two entries), 12/15/2023, 12/29/2023, 1/8/2024, 1/11/2024 (two entries), 1/15/2024 (two entries), 1/16/2024, 1/23/2024, 1/30/2024, 9/10/2025. ECF No. 58-2 at 1-20. 3 mentioned. Application of the foregoing reduces the total amount of fees to be awarded by $1,686.33. 4 In addition, regarding the time billed, I note this case required additional briefing regarding damages. See Petitioner’s Brief Regarding Damages, filed Jan. 4, 2025, ECF No. 50; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Brief Regarding Damages, filed March 28, 2025, ECF No. 53; Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 12.00 hours drafting the damages brief and 7.00 hours drafting the responsive brief, for a combined total of 19.00 hours. ECF No. 58-2 at 2-3. I find this amount of time to be reasonable and will award the attorney’s fees requested. ATTORNEY COSTS Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 58-4 at 1-12. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. CONCLUSION The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT, in part, Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $33,052.41 (representing $32,040.27 in fees plus $1,012.14 in costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 This amount is calculated as follows: $33,726.60 x .05 = $1,686.33. 5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 4