VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00306
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00306
Petitioner: Trudi Donovan
Filed: 2022-03-21
Decided: 2024-12-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-11
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 38257

AI-assisted case summary:
Trudi Donovan filed a petition alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of receiving influenza and pneumococcal conjugate (PCV-13) vaccines on September 11, 2020. The case proceeded as a Table claim, with the respondent disputing whether the Table elements were met, specifically regarding the duration of residual effects and the onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination. The court considered arguments on entitlement and damages, ultimately issuing an oral ruling on November 22, 2024, which was adopted and incorporated into this written decision. The court found that Trudi Donovan established entitlement to compensation, meeting the requirements for a Table injury, including suffering residual effects for more than six months and experiencing pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination. Accordingly, Trudi Donovan was awarded a lump sum payment of $38,257.18, which includes $38,000.00 for pain and suffering and $257.18 for past unreimbursed expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00306-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-27
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/22/2024) regarding 25 DECISION of Special Master and Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00306-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-306V
TRUDI DONOVAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 22, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 21, 2022, Trudi Donovan 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 Table injury – shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) - as the result of influenza (“flu”) and/or
pneumococcal conjugate (“PCV-13”) vaccines received on September 11, 2020. Petition
at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
1 Because this Ruling and 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-00306-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 3
Masters. Because entitlement was contested, the parties were ordered to file briefs
addressing whether Petitioner has established a Table case, and setting forth their
respective arguments on damages should I find entitlement in favor of Petitioner. ECF
No. 19. The parties were subsequently notified that I would resolve this dispute via an
expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which ultimately took place on November 22, 2024.
Petitioner argues she has established a Table claim for SIRVA pursuant to 42
C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XII)(A), (XIV)(B), and 100.3(c)(10) and seeks an award of $68,000.00
in compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering, plus $257.18 for past
unreimbursed expenses. ECF No. 20. Respondent disputes that the Table elements have
been met, arguing that Petitioner has failed to establish the following: 1) that she suffered
the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months after her vaccinations
pursuant to Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) of the Act; and 2) that she suffered the onset of pain
within 48 hours of her vaccinations pursuant C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a) (XII)(A), (XIV)(B),
100.3(c)(10)(ii). ECF Nos. 18, 22. Otherwise, if I find that Petitioner has established a
Table case, Respondent recommends an award of $35,000.00 for pain and suffering and
has no objection to the requested $257.18 for past unreimbursed expenses. ECF No. 22.
After considering the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on entitlement
and damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section
12(d)(3)(A). An official recording of the proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although
a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that
oral ruling as officially recorded. In another recent decision I discussed at length the legal
standards to be considered in determining entitlement and damages and prior SIRVA
compensation within SPU. I incorporate herein my prior discussion in Sections III (A) and
IV (A) and (B) of Tully v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-1998V, 2024 WL 4533515,
at *6-8; 10-13 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 20, 2024) to the instant Ruling and Decision.
Additionally, the official recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various
comparable cases as well as specific facts relating to Petitioner’s medical history and
experience that further informed my resolution of this matter.
Based on my review 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 Petitioner has
established that she 1) suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six
months after her vaccinations pursuant to Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) of the Act, and 2) suffered
the onset of pain within 48 hours of her vaccinations, and that all other SIRVA Table
requirements pursuant to 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XII)(A), (XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10) were
satisfied. Additionally, Petitioner has established the additional requirements of Section
11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered vaccine, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(E). I therefore
find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case, and that $38,000.00
2

Case 1:22-vv-00306-UNJ Document 29 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 3
represents a fair and appropriate amount of damages for Petitioner’s actual pain and
suffering.3
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $38,257.18 (representing
$38,000.00 for pain and suffering, plus $257.18 for past unreimbursable expenses) 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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 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)).
4 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.
3