VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00144
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00144
Petitioner: Kelly Quinn
Filed: 2023-06-12
Decided: 2025-02-24
Vaccine: Hepatitis A/B
Vaccination date: 2019-03-27
Condition: vasovagal syncope
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 130100

AI-assisted case summary:
Kelly Quinn, a 50-year-old adult, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 11, 2022. She alleged that she suffered from vasovagal syncope as a result of a Hepatitis A/B recombinant vaccine she received on March 27, 2019. Petitioner claimed her vaccine-related injuries lasted more than six months and resulted in inpatient surgical intervention. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report on June 9, 2023, conceding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation. The respondent stated that Petitioner satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, affording her a presumption of causation if the onset of vasovagal syncope occurred within one hour after a hepatitis A or hepatitis B vaccination and there was no apparent cause. The respondent also agreed that Petitioner experienced more than six months of residual effects. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found Petitioner entitled to compensation. A subsequent decision on damages was issued on February 24, 2025. Petitioner alleged that she suffered injuries after a syncopal episode immediately after receiving the vaccine. The parties could not agree on a damages figure, leading to a "Motions Day" proceeding. Petitioner sought $190,000.00 for pain and suffering, citing her reports of high pain levels, spinal surgery, continuing sequelae including hand numbness, reduced strength, neck pain, and impacts on her job and recreational activities. Respondent proposed an award of $85,000.00 for pain and suffering, describing Petitioner's injury as limited in duration with symptoms largely resolved within seven months, noting her return to activities like sailing by June 22, 2020. The medical records indicated that Petitioner, who had a prior history of lower back problems and osteoporosis, received the Twinrix vaccine on March 27, 2019. Shortly after vaccination, she fell in the exam room, becoming conscious, lightheaded, and dizzy, complaining of pain, numbness, and inability to move her arms. She was transported to the emergency room, where a CT of her c-spine revealed a nondisplaced hairline fracture in her C2 vertebrae. She was diagnosed with central cord syndrome on March 29, 2019, necessitating surgery. Petitioner wore a cervical collar for ten weeks and required follow-up care. She reported continued issues with balance, burning sensations in her neck, and tingling and weakness in her arms post-surgery. By June 22, 2020, she reported excellent progress and had returned to sailing. However, as of October 27, 2022, she reported continued hand numbness and weakness. Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Petitioner $130,000.00 for pain and suffering and $100.65 for past unreimbursed expenses, totaling $130,100.65. Additionally, $29,458.03 was awarded to satisfy a Maryland Medicaid lien. The Special Master found Petitioner's injury serious, requiring surgery and a cervical collar for ten weeks, but noted her treatment course was not as lengthy as in some other cited cases, justifying an award slightly lower than the highest requested amount. Petitioner was represented by Catherine Wallace Costigan of Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, and Respondent was represented by Michael Joseph Lang of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kelly Quinn, age 50, received a Hepatitis A/B vaccine on March 27, 2019. She alleged vasovagal syncope resulting in a fall, cervical fracture, and central cord syndrome. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that Petitioner satisfied the criteria in the Vaccine Injury Table for vasovagal syncope with onset within one hour of vaccination and no apparent alternative cause, and that residual effects lasted more than six months. The Special Master awarded $130,000.00 for pain and suffering and $100.65 for past unreimbursed expenses, totaling $130,100.65, plus $29,458.03 for a Maryland Medicaid lien. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on February 24, 2025. Petitioner was represented by Catherine Wallace Costigan, and Respondent by Michael Joseph Lang.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00144-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/12/2023) regarding 33 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0144V
UNPUBLISHED
KELLY QUINN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 12, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Hepatitis A (Hep A)
Vaccine; Hepatitis B (Hep B)
Respondent. Vaccine; Vasovagal Syncope
Catherine Wallace Costigan, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Washington, D.C, for
Petitioner.
Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 11, 2022, Kelly Quinn 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 from vasovagal syncope as a result of
a Hepatitis A/B vaccine she received on March 27, 2019. Petition at ¶¶6, 9, 11. Petitioner
further alleges that “her vaccine related injuries lasted more than six months and resulted
in inpatient surgical intervention.” Petition at ¶18. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 9, 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.
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 (2012).

Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 36 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 2
Specifically, Respondent states that “it is Respondent’s position that Petitioner has
satisfied the criteria set forth in the recently revised Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the
Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford Petitioner a presumption of
causation if the onset of vasovagal syncope occurs within one hour after a hepatitis A or
hepatitis B vaccination and there is no apparent cause.” Id. at 6. Respondent further
agrees that “Petitioner experienced more than six months of residual effects.” 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_22-vv-00144-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-24
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/14/2025) regarding 54 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0144V
KELLY QUINN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: January 14, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Catherine Wallace Costigan, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Michael Joseph Lang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 11, 2022, Kelly Quinn 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 injuries after a syncopal episode
immediately after she received a Hepatitis A/B recombinant vaccination on March 27,
2019. Petition at ¶9-10. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
of the Office of Special Masters, and although entitlement was conceded in Petitioner’s
favor, the parties could not agree to a damages figure, and their dispute was therefore
submitted to resolution at a “Motions Day” proceeding.
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $130,100.65, comprised of $130,000.00 for pain and suffering
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 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 2 of 9
and $100.65 for past unreimbursed expenses, plus the separate sum of $29,458.03 as
reimbursement for a Maryland Medicaid lien.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties reached an impasse in
their discussions regarding damages in December 2023. ECF No. 43. Petitioner filed a
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Regarding Damages on February 15, 2024. ECF No. 44. Respondent filed a responsive
brief on April 3, 2024. ECF No. 46. Petitioner filed a reply on April 9, 2024. ECF No. 47. I
subsequently proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to argue their positions
at hearing, at which time I would decide the disputed damages issues. ECF. No. 52. That
hearing was held on December 19, 2024,3 and the case is now ripe for a written
determination.
II. Relevant Facts
a. Medical Records
Petitioner was 50 years old at the time of her vaccination. She had a prior history
of lower back problems, including low back pain, scoliosis, a compression fracture, and
MRI findings at L4-S1. Ex. 3 at 11. She also had a history of osteoporosis. Ex. 5 at 51.
Petitioner received a Twinrix (Hepatitis A/B) vaccine on March 27, 2019, in
Baltimore, MD. Ex. 1 at 1-2. She was stable enough immediately after the vaccination for
the administrator to leave the room. Ex. 5 at 39. The administrator heard, but did not see,
Petitioner subsequently fall in the exam room. Id. When the administrator returned to the
room, she found Petitioner on the floor, conscious, but lightheaded and dizzy. Id.
Petitioner complained of pain, numbness, and an inability to move both arms. Id. She
became nauseated and was taken to the emergency room for evaluation. Id.
The same day, Petitioner was transported by ambulance to the emergency room.
Ex. 6 at 145. She reported her vaccination and the syncopal episode. Ex. 11 at 35. A CT
of her c-spine revealed “a nondisplaced hairline fracture” in her C2 vertebrae. Id. at 39.
Petitioner was admitted to the hospital, was given a cervical collar to wear at all times,
and was prescribed medications. Id.
3 At the end of the hearing held on December 19, 2024, I issued an oral ruling from the bench on damages
in this case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the hearing, which is yet to be filed with the
case’s docket. The transcript from the hearing is, however, fully incorporated into this Decision.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 3 of 9
The upper extremity symptoms caused the medical providers to believe that
Petitioner “was likely to develop central cord syndrome from a hyperextension type injury
mechanism,” which Petitioner was diagnosed with on March 29, 2019. Ex. 11 at 52.
On March 29, 2019, Petitioner had a physical therapy evaluation while in the
hospital. Ex. 11 at 59. She reported pain of 4/10. Id. at 60. Petitioner was wearing a
cervical collar, was able to get out of bed, walked around, was able to go up/down steps,
able to use the bathroom – and was determined to have had no acute PT needs. Id. at
61. Petitioner was discharged from the hospital with Flexeril and oxycodone. Id. at 29-30.
On April 2, 2019, Petitioner had a follow-up visit with her PCP. Ex. 5 at 23. She
was wearing a hard cervical collar and reported that her boyfriend had been helping her
with her daily activities. Id. at 24. She was prescribed gabapentin, a Medrol Dosepak,
Flexeril, and oxycodone and referred to an orthopedist. Id.
On April 8, 2019, Petitioner saw her orthopedist with complaints of neck pain
radiating to both arms and hands and balance issues that began after a fall at her doctor’s
office on 3/27/19. Ex. 8 at 57. She reported that initially she was unable to move her
hands for several hours after she fainted. Id. She reported improvement in her hands
since then, but that she still had dysthesias. Id. She reported that her balance problems
began a few months ago – but that she was more unstable since the fall. Id. Petitioner
was diagnosed with central cord syndrome in the setting of severe C3-4 and C4-5 cervical
stenosis. Id. at 62. After discussing treatment options, Petitioner opted for surgical
intervention to decompress the spinal cord. Id. The orthopedist noted that treatment for
the fracture was the cervical collar. Id.
Petitioner had surgery on April 17, 2019. Ex. 7.2 at 10. After surgery, she was
admitted to the ICU for monitoring. Id. at 17. The following day, April 18, 2019, Petitioner
had an inpatient physical therapy evaluation after which she was discharged from the
hospital. Ex. 7.2 at 44-51. She reported that the tingling in her arms was beginning to
improve. Id. at 47. Petitioner was educated on proper techniques for standing, getting in
and out of bed, etc. Id. at 48. Upon discharge, she was instructed not to bend or twist at
the waist, not to lift more than 15lbs, and to keep her spine straight. Id. at 50. She was
instructed to wear the cervical collar at all times. Id. at 55.
On May 30, 2019, Petitioner returned to her orthopedist for a six-week post-
surgical follow-up. Ex. 5 at 5. Petitioner reported being overall pleased with her progress
post-surgery. Id. She had continued issues with balance, a burning sensation in her neck,
and tingling and weakness in her arms. Id. She was advised to continue wearing the
cervical collar. Id.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 4 of 9
Petitioner had additional cervical x-rays on July 11, 2019 and July 24, 2019 and
lumbar x-rays on July 16, 2019.
On October 17, 2019, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist for a follow up
appointment. Ex. 5 at 66. She reported that the numbness and tingling in her arms and
hands had persisted. Id. The doctor noted that it was unclear whether the
numbness/tingling would continue to improve. Id. at 6. She was instructed to follow up in
six months.
Petitioner returned to her orthopedist on June 22, 2020. Ex. 5 at 63. She reported
continuing numbness and tingling in her arms – but she had made excellent progress. Id.
Petitioner reported that she had returned to sailing. Id. She was instructed to follow up in
one year. Id. at 64.
More than two years later, on October 27, 2022, Petitioner reported continued
hand numbness and weakness from her neck injury. Ex. 15 at 2. She was referred to
orthopedic surgery. Id. at 4.
On November 23, 2022, Petitioner visited a psychiatrist and reported “being tired
of being in pain from her neck.” Ex. 14 at 27.
No further records were filed.
b. Affidavit Testimony
Petitioner filed three declarations in support of her claim. See Ex. No. 9, 16, 21.
She described her on-going symptoms, including hand numbness and “intermittent
impulses where her hands open and she drops whatever she is holding.” Ex. 16 at ¶2;
Ex. 21 at ¶1. She noted that she has a permanent surgical scar on the front of her neck.
Ex. 21 at ¶3.
As a result of her injury, Petitioner maintains, her handwriting has suffered and she
can no longer do calligraphy or paint, that she can no longer exercise as she once did,
and that her work as a dementia caregiver has been impacted. Ex. 16 at ¶3; 5-7. She also
states that she has not sought further medical treatment because she understands that
there is no further treatment that is likely to be helpful. Ex. 21 at ¶4.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
a. Petitioner
Petitioner seeks an award of $190,000.00 for her pain and suffering. Mem. At 13-
17. She highlights her reports of high levels of pain, spinal surgery, and continuing
4

Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 5 of 9
sequela, including hand numbness, reduced strength, and neck pain, to support her
request. Id. Ms. Quinn also notes the impact her injury had on her ability to complete her
job tasks and on her recreational activities. Id. at 17.
During the hearing and in her brief, Petitioner discussed prior syncope cases that
involved injured claimants with awards ranging from $145,000.00 to $190,000.00, and
argued that an award of $190,000.00 in pain and suffering was reasonable and
appropriate in comparison. Mem. at 13-17. Petitioner also provided literature and
argument regarding the impacts of central cord syndrome. Id.at 10-13.
b. Respondent
Respondent proposes the lower award of $85,000.00 in pain and suffering. Resp.
at 7. He describes Petitioner’s injury as “limited in duration,” with her “symptoms largely
resolved within seven months.” Id. He noted that Petitioner reported improvement after
her surgery, and that she “had made excellent progress” and “had returned to pre-surgery
activities like sailing” by her last medical visit on June 22, 2020. Id. at 8.
Respondent also distinguishes Petitioner’s cited prior SIRVA cases, noting that all
of them had longer treatment courses. Resp. at 10-12. Respondent also discussed prior
syncope cases during the hearing with awards ranging from $45,000.00 to $100,000.00,
and argued that an award of $85,000.00 in pain and suffering was reasonable and
appropriate in comparison.
IV. Legal Standard
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). 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). 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).
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional
5

Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 6 of 9
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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 & 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)).
Special masters may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid in
determining the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in a case.
See, e.g., Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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, I may rely on my own experience (along with
my predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.4 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. 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).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
The Graves court maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering awards
into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is compared
to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 590. Instead, Graves
assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering
awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the
Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely
cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible
awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it provides reasoned guidance in calculating pain
and suffering awards.
4 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell.
For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims,
were assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019,
the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
6

Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 7 of 9
V. Appropriate Compensation in this Case
a. Pain and suffering
When determining pain and suffering awards, I review the entire record, including
all filed medical records and affidavits and all assertions made by the parties in written
documents and during oral argument. I also consider prior awards for pain and suffering
in both prior SPU and non-SPU cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these
cases. However, I ultimately base my determination on the circumstances of this case.
In this case, there is no dispute of the Petitioner’s pain awareness, and the parties
generally agree on the course of treatment Petitioner experienced following her
vaccination and syncopal episode. Petitioner was taken to the emergency room via
ambulance after her fall and diagnosed with a cervical fracture. Ex. 6 at 45; Ex. 11 at 39.
Her condition worsened and she was diagnosed with central cord syndrome, which
necessitated surgery to repair. Ex. 8 at 57-62; Ex. 11 at 52. In addition to surgery,
Petitioner was required to wear a cervical collar for ten weeks and required follow-up care,
including additional x-rays. Ex. 5 at 5; Ex. 7.2 at 55; Ex. 8 at 62. Although Petitioner’s
course of treatment was not lengthy – approximately fifteen months (with the bulk of
treatment in the first seven months)5 – the records clearly reveal a serious injury to her
neck and spine, followed by a good recovery, that justifies a substantial pain and suffering
award.
Petitioner argues that she should be awarded $190,000.00 in pain and suffering
for her vaccine injury. She cites to Campbell v. Secretary of Health & Human Services,
No. 20-0381V, 2023 WL 1512589 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2023), in which the
petitioner received $190,000.00 in pain and suffering, and Crawford v. Secretary of Health
& Human Services, No. 19-0198V, 2023 WL 5835058 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 3, 2023),
in which the petitioner received $145,000.00, to support her requested award. The
Campbell case involved a petitioner who suffered a leg fracture that required three
surgeries, caused her to be unable to work for one year, and caused documented ongoing
pain and motion deficits. Campbell, 2023 WL 1512589 at *2-4. The Crawford case, in
which the petitioner suffered a shoulder fracture that led to surgery, is more helpful;
however, that claimant required inpatient rehabilitation for one month after his surgery,
5 The duration of Petitioner’s pain and suffering is the primary disagreement between the parties. Petitioner
argues that she continues, five years after her vaccination, to experience neck pain, weakness in her arms,
intermittent dropping of objects, and permanent scarring from her surgery. Respondent argues that the bulk
of Petitioner’s treatment was completed within seven months, after which she had one follow-up at fifteen
months when she reported excellent progress, including a return to activities such as sailing. Thereafter,
Petitioner had sporadic mentions of symptoms during treatment for other medical problems. I do find gaps
in treatment significant and despite the initial severity of Petitioner’s injury, the record does not contain
evidence of significant ongoing problems.
7

Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 8 of 9
nine physical therapy treatments, and suffered additional injuries, including a concussion,
a pelvis fracture, and a compression injury to his spine. Crawford, 2023 WL 5835058 at
*4. Both cases involve injuries more severe than Ms. Quinn’s.
At the same time, the cases cited by Respondent in support of his suggested award
were not particularly helpful. For example, Respondent cited H.S. v. Secretary of Health
& Human Services, No. 14-1057V, 2015 WL 6155891 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 25,
2015), an older case that did not involve surgery, and several cases involving accepted
proffers, which are less useful than reasoned decisions due to the varied reasons that
parties may choose a settlement. Although Respondent did not successfully defend his
proposed number, he was successful in arguing that Petitioner’s cited cases involved
more severe injuries, and thus, pain and suffering awards that are too high.
I find Petitioner’s situation to be similar to the Petitioner in Hietpas v. Secretary of
Health & Human Services., No. 19-1702V, 2021 WL 688620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 5,
2021) in which I awarded $140,000.00 in pain and suffering. The Hietpas petitioner
suffered a syncopal episode that led to a fall, causing her to fracture her jaw (with dental
injuries) and a laceration to her chin. Id. at *2-3. She required surgery to repair her jaw,
stitches to her chin (leading to a permanent scar), and 18 months of treatment for TMJ.
Id. In addition to her pain during treatment, Ms. Hietpas suffered from difficulty eating and
speaking, had to forego activities, such as volleyball, and reported ongoing symptoms,
including jaw pain. Id. at *3-5. Similarly, Ms. Quinn suffered a fall and a fracture, which
required surgery and other treatment. She reported an inability to participate in activities,
such as sailing, calligraphy, painting, and exercising, impacts to her handwriting and
employment, and ongoing symptoms, including neck pain and upper extremity weakness.
Despite the similarities, Ms. Hietpas’s treatment lasted substantially longer –
approximately two years – than did Petitioner’s, which justifies a lower award herein, while
still accounting for the significant impacts of the injury on Ms. Quinn’s life.
Overall, considering the arguments presented by both parties at the hearing, a
review of the cited cases, and the record as a whole, I find that $130,000.00 in
compensation for past pain and suffering (slightly lower than the award in Hietpas) is
reasonable and appropriate in this case.
b. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Past Medical Expenses
Petitioner requests $100.65 in past unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses.
Mem. at 2. Respondent does not dispute this sum, and therefore Petitioner is awarded it
without adjustment. Resp. at 2, fn. 1.
8

Case 1:22-vv-00144-UNJ Document 61 Filed 02/24/25 Page 9 of 9
c. Reimbursement of Medicaid Lien
Petitioner reports that a Medicaid lien exists against her award in the amount of
$29,458.03. Mem. at 2. Respondent does not dispute this sum, and therefore Petitioner
is awarded it without adjustment. Resp. at 2, fn. 1.
Based on the above, I award Petitioner $29,458.03 in compensation for
satisfaction of the Maryland Medicaid lien for services rendered to Petitioner.
Conclusion
In light of all of the above, the I award Petitioner the following:
• A lump sum of $130,100.65, representing $130,000.00 in pain and
suffering and $100.65 in past unreimbursed expenses, to be paid through
an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement; and
• A lump sum of $29,458.03 in the form of a check jointly payable to
Petitioner and Wellpoint Maryland, Inc., P.O. Box 659940, San
Antonio, TX 78265-9939, Attention: Holly Fifarek.
These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 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