VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00559
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00559
Petitioner: Rocio Blanco
Filed: 2022-05-23
Decided: 2025-03-21
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-08-29
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 118002

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 23, 2022, Rocio Blanco filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination received on August 29, 2019. Ms. Blanco, who was 27 years old at the time of vaccination, alleged her injury persisted for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report conceding entitlement, agreeing that Ms. Blanco's condition was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that her symptoms persisted for more than six months. The parties were unable to agree on the amount of damages, leading to a decision by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The medical history detailed Ms. Blanco's onset of left shoulder pain, swelling, and decreased range of motion within hours and days of her vaccination. She experienced bruising and itching at the injection site, diagnosed as cellulitis, for which she received antibiotics and prednisone. Her shoulder pain and limitations continued, leading to multiple medical evaluations, including an MRI, cortisone injections, and physical therapy. She was diagnosed with rotator cuff syndrome and later tendinitis with mild tenosynovitis. Ms. Blanco underwent arthroscopic surgery on November 20, 2019, which included manipulation under anesthesia, tenosynovectomy, bursectomy, lysis of adhesions, and a plasma-rich and stem-cell injection. Post-surgery, she used a physical therapy chair and performed home exercises, as formal physical therapy was limited by co-pay issues. She continued to experience pain, weakness, and numbness, with diagnoses including rotator cuff syndrome and left brachial radiculitis. Her injury impacted her ability to care for her young son. The Special Master reviewed arguments from both parties regarding damages. Petitioner sought $115,000.00 for pain and suffering, citing the severity of her injury, complications like cellulitis, and the impact on her role as a single mother. She also requested $5,002.58 for past unreimbursed medical expenses for rehabilitation items. Respondent proposed an award of $77,500.00 for pain and suffering, characterizing the injury as mild to moderate and noting the relatively short duration of treatment. The Special Master considered prior SIRVA cases and the specific facts of Ms. Blanco's case. He found that her treatment course, while including surgery, was of relatively short duration, but noted her prompt treatment seeking, high pain levels, and the impact on her parenting. Comparing her case to prior awards, particularly the case of Barry v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., which involved a similar award of $113,000.00 for pain and suffering to a mother of young children, the Special Master determined that $113,000.00 was a fair and appropriate award for Ms. Blanco's pain and suffering. He also awarded the full $5,002.58 requested for past unreimbursed expenses, finding them reasonably necessary and not reimbursable by a third party. The total award was $118,002.58. Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey S. Pop of Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, and Respondent was represented by Amanda Pasciuto and later Mitchell Jones of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on March 21, 2025.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Rocio Blanco, age 27, received an influenza vaccination on August 29, 2019. She alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) that persisted for more than six months. Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the injury was consistent with SIRVA on the Vaccine Injury Table and persisted for over six months. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. The case proceeded to a damages determination. Petitioner sought $115,000.00 for pain and suffering and $5,002.58 for past unreimbursed expenses. Respondent proposed $77,500.00 for pain and suffering. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $113,000.00 for pain and suffering and $5,002.58 for past unreimbursed expenses, totaling $118,002.58. The award for pain and suffering was based on the severity and duration of the injury, treatment including surgery, and impact on her role as a single mother, drawing comparisons to prior SIRVA cases, particularly Barry v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. Decision date: March 21, 2025. Petitioner's counsel: Jeffrey S. Pop. Respondent's counsel: Amanda Pasciuto, Mitchell Jones.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00559-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-12-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/20/2023) regarding 27 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 30 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0559V
ROCIO BLANCO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 20, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Amanda Pasciuto, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 23, 2022, Rocio Blanco 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”) following an influenza vaccination she received on August 29,
2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her vaccine injury persisted for more
than six months. Petition at ¶20. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On November 13, 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
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 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 30 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 2
with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Petitioner had no history
of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her 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 7. Respondent further
agrees that “Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her 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_22-vv-00559-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-21
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/18/2025) regarding 42 DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0559V
ROCIO BLANCO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 18, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 23, 2022, Rocio Blanco 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”) following an influenza vaccination she received on August 29,
2019. Petition at 1. 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.
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $118,002.58, comprised of $113,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering plus $5,002.58 for past unreimbursed expenses.
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-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 2 of 12
I. Relevant Procedural History
Even though the matter was conceded, the parties reached an impasse in their
discussions regarding damages. ECF No. 26. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Ruling on
the Record (“Mot.”) on January 4, 2024. ECF No. 31. Respondent filed a response
(“Resp.”) on February 23, 2024 and Petitioner filed a reply (“Repl.”) on March 28, 2024.
ECF No. 32-34. On July 12, 2024, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Brief (“Supp.”) in which
she requested reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for “post-surgery rehabilitation”
equipment. ECF No. 36.
I subsequently proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to argue their
positions at a “Motions Day” hearing, at which time I would decide the disputed damages
issues. ECF. No. 37. That hearing was held on November 22, 2024,3 and the case is now
ripe for a written determination.
II. Relevant Medical History
Petitioner was 27 years old when she received a flu vaccine in her left arm on
August 29, 2019 at an urgent care in Pasadena, CA. Ex. 2 at 1; Ex, 3 at 126. She recalled
that she had pain and swelling in her left shoulder within hours of her vaccination, and
within a few days her range of motion had decreased to the point that she had difficulty
lifting her arm. Ex. 1 at ¶6
On September 9, 2019 (11 days post-vaccination), Petitioner returned to urgent
care with bruising and itching at the injection site. Ex. 3 at 138. She also complained of
dizziness, headaches, and abdominal cramping. Id. On exam, Petitioner had a rash with
pain on her left upper arm and was diagnosed with cellulitis. Id. at 141. She was
prescribed Bactrim and prednisone. Id.
The following day, Petitioner sent a message to the provider informing him that her
whole arm was sore and that she couldn’t lift it much due to pain. Ex 3 at 189. She was
advised to follow up with her primary care provider (“PCP”) or urgent care. Id. She
returned to urgent care on the evening of September 10, 2019. Id. at 173. She reported
continued pain and intermittent numbness on the left side of her body. Id. Petitioner’s left
shoulder was tender to palpation and her flexion was limited to 90 degrees. Id. at 174.
She was prescribed naproxen and advised to consider physical therapy if her symptoms
persisted. Id. at 175.
3 At the end of the hearing held on November 22, 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-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 3 of 12
Petitioner saw her PCP on September 12, 2019. Ex. 4 at 4. She reported pain
immediately after her flu shot on August 29. Id. The doctor noted that Petitioner’s deltoid
was warm and swollen. Id. She was given an antibiotic injection and doxycycline. Id.
Petitioner returned the following day with complaints of having trouble sleeping due to her
shoulder pain. Id. at 3. She was given another antibiotic injection and referred for an MRI.
Id.
Petitioner had a left arm MRI on September 14, 2019 that was unremarkable. Ex.
4 at 6. Her shoulder MRI the same day revealed mild tendinosis, possible mild biceps
tenosynovitis, and findings possibly indicating a predisposition to subacromial
impingement. Id. at 8-9.
On October 3, 2019, Petitioner saw another family medicine doctor. Ex. 3 at 192.
She complained of left shoulder pain, rated 8/10, since her flu vaccine that was preventing
her from sleeping. Id. at 195. She reported left hand weakness, numbness in her left
upper extremity, and limitations in range of motion. Id. On exam, she had significantly
reduced range of motion, with abduction to 45 degrees, positive impingement testing, and
reduced strength. Id. at 196. She was prescribed naproxen and referred to orthopedics.
Id. at 197.
On October 7, 2019, Petitioner saw an orthopedist for evaluation. Ex. 3 at 217.
She reported left shoulder pain, decreased range of motion, and weakness, as well as
new right shoulder pain. Id. She rated her pain as 8/10. Id. On exam, there was diffuse
tenderness to palpation, reduced active range of motion, and good rotator cuff strength.
Id. X-rays were negative. Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with left rotator cuff syndrome,
given a cortisone injection, and referred to physical therapy. Id. at 218.
Petitioner began physical therapy on October 11, 2019 and had 4 sessions through
November 1. Ex. 3 at 261-322. Her six-year-old son came to the initial appointment with
her. Id. at 262. The assessment was “acute stage” rotator cuff syndrome with “muscle
power deficits.” Id. at 264.
Petitioner sent a message to her orthopedist on October 24, 2019 stating that she
had had some relief, but that her shoulder pain was slowly starting to return. Ex. 3 at 287.
She was prescribed Mobic. Id. at 286.
On October 30, 2019, Petitioner saw had a telemedicine appointment with her
family medicine provider. Ex. 3 at 305. She reported that physical therapy was “so painful
that she walks out in tears.” Id. She reported pain of 8/10 that decreased to 4-5/10 with
naproxen. Id. She was prescribed meloxicam and referred back to orthopedics. Id. at
306.
3

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 4 of 12
On November 7, 2019, Petitioner had a telemedicine appointment with her
orthopedist. Ex. 3 at 322. Sher reported 8/10 pain radiating down to her forearm. Id. She
did not find physical therapy helpful and said the co-pay for meloxicam was problematic.
Id. Surgery was recommended. Id.
Petitioner got a second orthopedic opinion on November 12, 2019. Ex. 5 at 1. She
reported her August flu shot and “painful pulsing throughout the day in the left upper arm.”
Id. She reported that physical therapy made the pain worse. Id. On exam, Petitioner had
swelling and redness in her left arm, weakness, tenderness, and reduced range of motion
of the shoulder. Id. She was diagnosed with tendinitis with mild tenosynovitis. Id. Surgery
was again recommended. Id. at 2.
Petitioner had arthroscopic surgery on November 20, 2019. Ex. 5 at 3-4. The
surgical procedures included manipulation under anesthesia, tenosynovectomy,
bursectomy, lysis of adhesions, and a plasma-rich and stem-cell injection. Id. at 3. She
returned for a post-operative exam on November 26, 2019. Ex. 5 at 5. She reported some
pain and difficulty sleeping, but improving range of motion. Id. She was referred for
physical therapy. Id.
Petitioner states she was “given a physical therapy chair that would move her
shoulder” that she used for about 2 months along with home exercises. Ex. 1 at ¶23. She
did not attend formal PT due to co-pay issues. Id.
On January 31, 2020, Petitioner followed up with her PCP. Ex. 3 at 361. She
reported left arm pain that radiated to her left hand and left hand weakness (such that she
could not grab anything in her left hand). Id. at 364. She reported pain of 6/10 and a
“burning/tingling/numbness” sensation. Id. On exam, Petitioner “jumped with light
palpation at the AC joint and anterior shoulder.” Id. at 365. She had decreased range of
motion of both shoulders and a weak left-hand grip compared to the right. Id. She also
had decreased range of motion of the wrist and tenderness at the elbow. Id. She was
instructed to see a physical therapist the same day and to follow up with orthopedics. Id.
On April 6, 2020, Petitioner saw a sports medicine specialist. Ex. 3 at 405. She
reported pain with lifting her arm, weakness in her arm and hand, and tingling in her hand.
Id. at 407. Petitioner stated that meloxicam, naproxen, and ibuprofen did not provide
relief. Id. She was diagnosed with rotator cuff syndrome and left brachial radiculitis. Id. at
408. MRIs of her c-spine and brachial plexus were ordered. Id. She was prescribed
prednisone and referred to physical therapy. Id. The doctor opined that her pain
“appear[ed] multifactorial.” Id. at 409.
4

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 5 of 12
Petitioner had a physical therapy initial evaluation on April 7, 2020, but did not
return for further treatment. Ex. 3 at 421. Petitioner had no further left shoulder specific
treatment.
On May 6, 2022 (2.5 years after vaccination), Petitioner was treated for right leg
and left shoulder pain after a car accident. Ex. 7 at 156. On exam, she had mild
tenderness and good range of motion of her left shoulder. Id. at 159. Petitioner was given
crutches for her leg injury. Id. at 441.
Petitioner states in her affidavit that her injury impacted her ability to play with her
young son, who was six-years-old. Ex. 1 at ¶25, 30. She described how she could not
play catch/sports with him, could not care for him, could not drive him to school. Id. While
she notes a “strong recovery” from surgery, she states her shoulder never returned to its
pre-vaccination condition and feels “old compared to the rest of her body.” Id. at ¶29.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner seeks an award of $115,000.00 for her pain and suffering. Mot. at 21.
She argues that her SIRVA injury was “severe” causing significant pain throughout her
treatment course, including after her surgery. Id. She notes that her injury was
complicated by her cellulitis, which required both injected and oral antibiotics. Id. Further,
Petitioner states that her pain and suffering was increased because of the impact of her
injury on her ability to care for her young child as a single mother. Id.
During the hearing and in her brief, Petitioner discussed prior SIRVA cases that
involved injured claimants with awards ranging from $112,500.00 to $113,000.00, making
her demand reasonable. Mot. at 17-22. Petitioner also requests reimbursement of
$5,002.58 in out-of-pocket expenses due to her orthopedist for rehabilitation items, such
a cold therapy unit, an ultra-sling, home exercise equipment, and a passive continuous
motion exercise device, that she used after her shoulder surgery. Supp. at 1; Ex. 9.
a. Respondent
Respondent argues that Petitioner’s damages request is “excessive” and proposes
an award of $77,500 for pain and suffering. Resp. at 2. He characterizes Petitioner’s injury
as “mild to moderate,” even though she had surgery. Id. at 8. He notes the relatively short
duration of Petitioner’s treatment in support of his argument. Id.
Respondent also distinguishes Petitioner’s cited prior SIRVA cases, and discussed
three other prior SIRVA cases, which involved injured claimants with awards ranging from
$95,000.00 to $97,500.00 in pain and suffering. Id. at 9-13. Respondent argued that
5

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 6 of 12
Petitioner’s case was less severe than the cases cited, due to her recovery in less than
one year after her vaccination, her “limited conservative treatment,” and surgery. Id. at
13.
Respondent did not take a position in his response or at the hearing regarding
Petitioner’s requested reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses.
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
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
6

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 7 of 12
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.
V. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU5
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of July 1, 2024, 4,138 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU ten
years before. Compensation has been awarded in the vast majority of cases (4,016), with
the remaining 122 cases dismissed.
2,308 of the compensated SPU SIRVA cases were the result of a reasoned ruling
that the petitioner was entitled to compensation (as opposed to an informal settlement or
concession).6 In only 235 of these cases, however, was the amount of damages also
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.
5 All figures included in this decision are derived from a review of the decisions awarding compensation
within the SPU. All decisions reviewed are, or will be, available publicly. All figures and calculations cited
are approximate.
6 The remaining 1,708 compensated SIRVA cases were resolved via stipulated agreement of the parties
without a prior ruling on entitlement. These agreements are often described as “litigative risk” settlements,
and thus represent a reduced percentage of the compensation which otherwise would be awarded.
Because multiple competing factors may cause the parties to settle a case (with some having little to do
7

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 8 of 12
determined by a special master in a reasoned decision.7 As I have previously stated, the
written decisions setting forth such determinations, prepared by neutral judicial officers
(the special masters themselves), provide the most reliable guidance in deciding what
similarly-situated claimants should also receive.8
The data for all categories of damages decisions described above reflect the
expected differences in outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated9
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 235 2,044 29 1,708
Lowest $35,000.00 $10,000.00 $45,000.00 $2,500.00
1st Quartile $67,910.00 $60,539.19 $90,000.00 $35,000.00
Median $85,920.03 $80,240.98 $130,000.00 $50,000.00
3rd Quartile $125,066.35 $109,681.54 $162,500.00 $77,500.00
Largest $1,569,302.82 $1,845,047.00 $1,500,000.00 $550,000.00
B. Pain and Suffering Awards in Reasoned Decisions
In the 235 SPU SIRVA cases in which damages were the result of a reasoned
decision, compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from
$35,000.00 to $215,000.00, with $85,000.00 as the median amount. Only ten of these
cases involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from
with the merits of an underlying claim), these awards from settled cases do not constitute a reliable gauge
of the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded in other SPU SIRVA cases.
7 The rest of these cases resulting in damages after concession were either reflective of a proffer by
Respondent (2,044 cases) or stipulation (29 cases). Although all proposed amounts denote some form of
agreement reached by the parties, those presented by stipulation derive more from compromise than
instances in which Respondent formally acknowledges that the settlement sum itself is a fair measure of
damages.
8 Of course, even though all independently-settled damages issues (whether by stipulation/settlement or
proffer) must still be approved by a special master, such determinations do not provide the same judicial
guidance or insight obtained from a reasoned decision. But given the aggregate number of such cases,
these determinations nevertheless “provide some evidence of the kinds of awards received overall in
comparable cases.” Sakovits v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1028V, 2020 WL 3729420, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020) (discussing the difference between cases in which damages are agreed
upon by the parties and cases in which damages are determined by a special master).
9 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
8

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 9 of 12
$250.00 to $1,500.00.10 In one of these cases, the future pain and suffering award was
limited by the statutory pain and suffering cap.11
In cases with lower awards for past pain and suffering, many petitioners commonly
demonstrated only mild to moderate levels of pain throughout their injury course. This
lack of significant pain is often evidenced by a delay in seeking treatment – over six
months in one case. In cases with more significant initial pain, petitioners usually
experienced this greater pain for three months or less. Most petitioners displayed only
mild to moderate limitations in range of motion (“ROM”), and MRI imaging showed
evidence of mild to moderate pathologies such as tendinosis, bursitis, or edema. Many
petitioners suffered from unrelated conditions to which a portion of their pain and suffering
could be attributed. These SIRVAs usually resolved after one to two cortisone injections
and two months or less of physical therapy (“PT”). None required surgery. Except in one
case involving very mild pain levels, the duration of the SIRVA injury ranged from six to
30 months, with most petitioners averaging approximately nine months of pain. Although
some petitioners asserted residual pain, the prognosis in these cases was positive.
Cases with higher awards for past pain and suffering involved petitioners who suffered
more significant levels of pain and SIRVAs of longer duration. Most of these petitioners
subjectively rated their pain within the upper half of a ten-point pain scale and sought
treatment of their SIRVAs more immediately, often within 30 days of vaccination. All
experienced moderate to severe limitations in range of motion. MRI imaging showed more
significant findings, with the majority showing evidence of partial tearing. Surgery or
significant conservative treatment, up to 133 PT sessions - occasionally spanning several
years, and multiple cortisone injections, were required in these cases. In eight cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
VI. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
When determining a petitioner’s pain and suffering award, 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 SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases and rely upon my experience
10 Additionally, a first-year future pain and suffering award of $10,000.00 was made in one case. Dhanoa
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018).
11 Joyce v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1882V, 2024 WL 1235409, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 20, 2024) (applying the $250,000.00 statutory cap for actual and future pain and suffering set forth in
Section 15(a)(4) before reducing the future award to net present value as required by Section 15(f)(4)(A));
see Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552, 554-55 (Fed. Cir.1994) (requiring the
application of the statutory cap before any projected pain and suffering award is reduced to net present
value).
9

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 10 of 12
adjudicating these cases. However, Petitioner’s circumstances will ultimately form my
determination in this case.
There is no dispute about Petitioner’s awareness of her pain and suffering, and
the parties generally agree on her course of treatment. Petitioner sought treatment for
pain, bruising, itching and a rash at the injection site eleven days after her vaccination.
Ex. 3 at 138-141. She was prescribed both oral and injected antibiotics for cellulitis and
naproxen for shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 141, 175; Ex. 4 at 4. She continued to treat her
SIRVA symptoms consistently, with one MRI, one cortisone injection, five physical
therapy treatments, arthroscopic surgery, and at-home post-surgical rehabilitation for
approximately 7.5 months after her vaccination. See e.g., Ex. 3 at 218, 262-322; Ex. 4 at
8-9; Ex. 5 at 3-4. She complained of high levels of pain that improved after her surgery
three months post-vaccination. See e.g., Ex. 3 at 195, 217, 306, 361; Ex. 5 at 5. Overall,
her course of treatment suggests a serious SIRVA injury of relatively short duration.
Petitioner argues that her SIRVA was acutely serious, with a cellulitis diagnosis in
addition to SIRVA. Br. at 8-9. She notes that she reported high levels of pain and suffered
impacts related to parenting her young son. Id. at 16. Respondent, by contrast, highlights
that Petitioner’s treatment course was relatively limited and over a short duration, less
than one year. Resp. at 13. In support, Respondent relies on Shelton v. Secretary of
Health and Human Services, No. 19-0279V, 2021 WL 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
21, 2021), Hunt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL
2826662f (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 16, 2022), and Cain v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 19-1817V, 2023 WL 8539386 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 13, 2023) in which
the petitioners were awarded $95,000.00 to $97,500.00 in pain and suffering despite
undergoing surgery for their SIRVA injuries. Resp. at 11-13. However, these cases are
outliers, with specific circumstances that impacted the award. No such circumstances are
present in this case as Ms. Blanco sought treatment within 11 days of her vaccination,
reported high levels of pain, and did not have significant gaps in treatment.
Although both parties provided prior reasoned decisions to support their proposed
pain and suffering awards, Petitioner’s cases (particularly Barry v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 20-1874V, 2023 WL 4742421 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 23, 2023))
are more helpful. The petitioner in Barry sought treatment for her SIRVA injury eight
weeks after vaccination and reported moderate pain. Id. at *2. She had four cortisone
injections, 24 physical therapy treatments, and an arthroscopic surgery over
approximately 8.5 months. Id. Ms. Barry was also the mother of two toddlers at the time
of her injury and the impacts on her ability to provide care to small children impacted her
pain and suffering award of $113,000.00. Id. at *6. Ms. Blanco had treatment of similar
duration and was also a single mother to a young child at the time of her injury. While she
had fewer cortisone injections and physical therapy treatments, she sought treatment
10

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 11 of 12
more quickly and reported higher levels of pain than did Ms. Barry. Further, I accept that
Ms. Blanco substituted at least some post-surgery physical therapy with a continuous
motion device and home exercises.
Thus, I find that $113,000.00, the same award as in Barry, is a fair and appropriate
award for Petitioner’s pain and suffering in this case.
VII. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Past Medical Expenses
Petitioners may be awarded reasonably necessary actual unreimbursable
expenses that were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered a vaccine injury.
Section 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner seeks reimbursement of $5,002.58 in out-of-pocket
expenses incurred for rehabilitation items, such a cold therapy unit, an ultra-sling, home
exercise equipment, and a passive continuous motion exercise device, that she used after
her shoulder surgery. Supp. at 1; Ex. 9. Respondent did not take a position regarding
Petitioner’s requested expenses. See ECF No. 41.
Petitioner has provided a copy of her health insurance policy with Kaiser – Kaiser
Permanente Traditional HMO Plan. Ex. 10. Petitioner’s health care plan does not provide
coverage for providers outside of the Kaiser network. See id. Petitioner’s orthopedist, Dr.
Rajagopalan is not an in-network provider with Kaiser Permanente. See Ex. 5, 9. Further,
Petitioner’s orthopedist recommended range of motion exercises after her surgery, which
were accomplished with the medical equipment rather than formal physical therapy. See
Ex. 1 at ¶23; Ex. 5 at 5.
Therefore, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence that the
expenses incurred were both reasonably necessary and are not reimbursable by a third
party. Accordingly, I award Petitioner $5,002.58 as compensation for her past
unreimbursed expenses.
Conclusion
In light of all of the above, the I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$118,002.58, comprised of $113,000.00 for her pain and suffering and $5,002.58 for
her past unreimbursed expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner, Rocio Blanco. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section
15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
11

Case 1:22-vv-00559-UNJ Document 48 Filed 03/21/25 Page 12 of 12
The Clerk of 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.
12