VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00827
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00827
Petitioner: Benjamin Gootee
Filed: 2023-11-20
Decided: 2025-01-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-18
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 43961

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 29, 2022, Benjamin Gootee filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received in his right shoulder on November 18, 2020. Mr. Gootee, a 37-year-old CEO, stated that his past medical history was unremarkable for right shoulder pain or dysfunction. He reported experiencing right shoulder pain and limited range of motion starting around December 1, 2020, approximately 42 days after vaccination, which he mentioned during a physical therapy evaluation for an Achilles heel issue. He was able to schedule physical therapy for his shoulder, beginning on December 30, 2020. Mr. Gootee described discomfort during certain movements and pain when lifting his arm overhead, reaching across his body, lifting with an extended reach, and sleeping on his right side. His primary care physician, Dr. Ryan Lee, recommended over-the-counter pain relief and referred him to physical therapy specifically for his shoulder. Mr. Gootee underwent 23 physical therapy sessions from February to June 2021, reporting intermittent sharp, shooting pain as severe as six or seven on a ten-point scale. During a consultation with orthopedist Dr. Timothy Finney, M.D., on May 3, 2021, Mr. Gootee presented with decreased strength, decreased range of motion, and positive impingement signs. An x-ray showed a Type III acromion and degenerative acromioclavicular joint changes. He received a steroid injection in his right shoulder, which provided some relief but was followed by fatigue and residual guarding. His final physical therapy session occurred on June 9, 2021, approximately seven months post-vaccination, at which point he reported no pain or tightness, full range of motion, and a complete return to his premorbid level, having achieved all therapy goals. He was discharged with a recommendation for home exercises. On December 20, 2021, during an annual exam and flu vaccine, no musculoskeletal complaints were noted, and normal range of motion was documented. Mr. Gootee stated that the injury led to a decline in his emotional well-being, causing him to become depressed and withdrawn, affecting his ability to concentrate and make decisions, and requiring him to take time away from work. His business acquaintance, Erik Frank, his Vice President, Kyle Sharbonno, and his wife, Ashley Gootee, provided statements corroborating the impact of the injury on his outlook, work, and personal life, including difficulties playing with his children and sleep disturbances. Respondent conceded that Petitioner's alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, that he had no prior shoulder issues, that pain occurred within 48 hours post-vaccination, was limited to the vaccinated shoulder, and no other condition explained the pain. Respondent also agreed that Petitioner suffered residual effects for more than six months, satisfying the prerequisites for compensation. The case proceeded to a damages hearing. Petitioner sought $85,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $916.61 for unreimbursable expenses. Respondent argued this amount was excessive, suggesting an award consistent with mild cases and citing comparable cases with awards ranging from $30,000.00 to $65,000.00. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that Mr. Gootee's SIRVA was on the mild end of the spectrum, noting it did not require surgery and largely resolved within seven months. He found Petitioner's cited cases distinguishable due to special circumstances not present in Mr. Gootee's case. Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded Benjamin Gootee $43,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $961.16 for unreimbursable medical expenses, for a total award of $43,961.16, payable by check to Petitioner. The decision was issued on January 7, 2025.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Benjamin Gootee, age 37, received an influenza vaccine on November 18, 2020. He alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) that lasted more than six months. Respondent conceded that the injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, noting no prior shoulder issues, pain within 48 hours post-vaccination limited to the vaccinated shoulder, and no other explanatory condition. The parties agreed that the injury lasted more than six months. The case proceeded to a damages hearing. Petitioner sought $85,000 for pain and suffering and $916.61 for expenses. Respondent argued for an award consistent with mild cases, citing prior awards between $30,000 and $65,000. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the injury to be on the mild end of the spectrum, not requiring surgery and largely resolving within seven months. He awarded $43,000.00 for pain and suffering and $961.16 for unreimbursable expenses, totaling $43,961.16. The decision was issued on January 7, 2025. Attorneys for Petitioner were Joseph Alexander Vuckovich of Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA. Attorney for Respondent was Emilie Williams of the U.S. Department of Justice. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00827-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-11-20
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/18/2023) regarding 24 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 26 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0827V
BENJAMIN GOOTEE,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: October 18, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 29, 2022, Benjamin Gootee filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a Table shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received
on November 18, 2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that his injury lasted for
more than six months. Petition at 4. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 18, 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 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-00827-UNJ Document 26 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 2
1. Specifically, Respondent states that “petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA
as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction of his right 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 4. Respondent further agrees that
Petitioner has suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months and
therefore has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. 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-00827-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-01-07
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/02/2024) regarding 50 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0827V
BENJAMIN GOOTEE,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v.
Filed: December 2, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 29, 2022, Benjamin Gootee filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received to his right
shoulder on November 18, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 8
Although Petitioner has been found entitled to compensation, the parties could not
agree on the damages to be awarded, and therefore the matter was scheduled for a
“Motions Day” proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, and after hearing argument
from the parties, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of
$43,000.00, for his actual pain and suffering, plus $961.16 for unreimbursable medical
expenses.
I. Procedural History
On October 18, 2023, I issued a ruling on entitlement in favor of Petitioner. ECF
No. 24. On September 3, 2024, Petitioner filed his brief in support of damages (“Mot.”),
and Respondent filed a Response on October 2, 2024 (“Opp.”). Petitioner filed a reply
(“Reply”) memorandum on October 16, 2024. ECF Nos. 38-39, 41. I heard arguments
from both parties during a Motions’ Day Damages hearing held on November 22, 2024.
II. Relevant Medical History
Mr. Gootee was a 37-year-old CEO and owner of a construction company at the
time he received the flu vaccine in his right shoulder at the office of his primary care
physician (“PCP”) on November 18, 2020. Ex. 1 at 1; Ex. 10 at 1-2. His past medical
history is unremarkable for any type of right shoulder pain or dysfunction. See e.g., Ex. 3
at 6.
In his declaration, Mr. Gootee stated that on December 1, 2020, during an initial
physical therapy (“PT”) evaluation for his Achilles heel, he mentioned to his physical
therapist that he had right shoulder pain and limited range of motion from his November
18, 2020 flu shot. Ex. 10 at 1. Mr. Gootee added that the earliest PT appointment he could
get scheduled to address his shoulder was set for December 30, 2020. Id.
On December 30, 2020, 42 days after vaccination, Mr. Gootee attended a
previously scheduled PT session for his ongoing Achilles tendonitis. Ex. 6 at 1081. He
reported to his therapist that his calves were improving but that his right shoulder was
“really irritating him from when he got the flu shot back in November.” Id. at 1082. Mr.
Gootee further reported “discomfort during certain movements, especially horizontal
adduction.” Id.
On January 3, 2021 (now 46 days post-vaccination), Mr. Gootee sent a note to his
primary care provider, Dr. Ryan Lee, stating, “I received a flu shot on 11/18/2020 at my
annual check-up in my right shoulder and ever since it has remained sore and I have
limited range of motion.” Ex. 6 at 985. He further stated that “[m]y shoulder hurts when I
lift my arm over my head, when I reach across my body, when I lift with an extended
2

Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 8
reach, and when I’m sleeping on my right side.” Id. at 984-85. Dr. Lee recommended that
Mr. Gootee take Aleve and referred him to PT specifically for his shoulder. Id.
Mr. Gootee completed 23 sessions of physical therapy for his right shoulder from
February to June 2021. See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 340-41, 382-83, 448-49, 527-28. During this
time, he reported intermittent sharp, shooting pain as severe as six or seven on a ten-
point scale with certain movements. Id. at 527, 558.
At a consultation with orthopedist Dr. Timothy Finney, M.D. on May 3, 2021, Mr.
Gootee was found to have decreased strength, decreased range of motion, and positive
impingement signs. Ex. 3 at 7-9. An x-ray revealed a Type III acromion and degenerative
acromioclavicular joint changes. Id. at 9. He received a steroid injection in his right
shoulder. Id. Following the steroid injection, Mr. Gootee reported fatigue and
demonstrated residual guarding of his right shoulder following a golf trip. Ex. 6 at 186-87.
However, the injection provided Mr. Gootee with some relief. Ex. 10 at 1-2.
Mr. Gootee’s final PT session occurred on June 9, 2021, approximately seven
months after vaccination. Ex. 6 at 95-97. He now reported feeling no pain or tightness in
his right shoulder or forearm, adding that he was happy with his present state and ready
for discharge. Id. at 95. Mr. Gootee had played golf two days in a row without issue. Id.
His therapist noted that Petitioner completed his final task of lifting from various heights
with no issue and had achieved all his goals in therapy. Id. Mr. Gootee had full ROM and
“complete[ly] return[ed] to premorbid level.” Id. 96. He was discharged, with the
recommendation to continue home exercises for “stabilization.” Id. 97.
On December 20, 2021, Mr. Gootee presented to his internist for an annual exam
and a flu vaccine. Ex. 9 at 14. No musculoskeletal complaints were noted, and a normal
ROM was documented. Id. at 16.
In his most recent declaration (dated June 14, 2022), Mr. Gootee explained the
impact of his injury on his career and personal life:
The combination of my inability to sleep and my concern that I would never
return to my normal life led to a decline in my emotional well being. I became
depressed, withdrawn and had little patience for issues that would seem
minor to a healthy person. My injury affected my ability to perform my job
duties. Due to my exhaustion and depression, I found it hard to concentrate
and make important decisions. Additionally, I had to take time away from
work to attend my appointments. I am the CEO of a medium sized business
with approximately 150 employees. I hold myself to the highest standards
3

Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 8
of performance and my inability to work in the capacity I previously worked
furthered my feelings of anxiety and depression.
Ex. 10 at 2. A witness statement offered by Erik Frank, a business acquaintance of Mr.
Gootee’s, similarly describes the negative effect of Mr. Gootee’s SIRVA on his outlook
and on his work as a business owner. Ex. 16. Kyle Sharbonno, who serves as Vice
President of Mr. Gootee’s company, corroborates these accounts, explaining that Mr.
Gootee stepped back from his management of the day-to-day affairs of his company
during the period when he was injured. Ex. 17. Finally, Petitioner’s wife, Ashley Gootee,
confirms his account of the difficulties that his SIRVA caused him in playing sports with
his boys and lifting and carrying them. Ex. 18. She also describes the sleep disturbances
that Petitioner suffered, as well as the effect of his injury on the operation of his
construction business. Id.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
a. Petitioner
Petitioner contends that his injury took a “considerable emotional toll” on him, as
well as hindered his job performance. Mot. at 8. He explained that his SIRVA caused pain
that he rated at 6/7 out of 10 at its worst. Id. Petitioner argues that his treatment included
an orthopedist appointment, a steroid injection, and 23 PT sessions, but that his residual
symptoms persisted until at least May 2024. Id. Petitioner argued that based on the facts
and circumstances of his case, he is entitled to an award of $85,000.00 in past pain and
suffering and $916.61, for his out-of-pocket expenses. Id.
Petitioner cited to two cases in support of his claim for past pain and suffering: (1)
Russano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0382V, 2020 WL 3639804 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. June 4, 2020), and (2) Rael v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-
1462V, 2020 WL 901449 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 28, 2020). Petitioners were awarded
$80,000.00, and $85,000.00, respectively, for their past pain and suffering in those cases.
b. Respondent
Respondent has argued that Petitioner’s request for $85,000.00 is “excessive,”
and that instead an award “consistent with previous mild cases for pain and suffering” is
justified. Opp. at 2. Citing to 11 allegedly comparable cases, Respondent has argued that
Petitioner’s duration of injury and course of treatment were “mild” overall. Opp. at 10.
Respondent also noted that Mr. Gootee’s treatment consisted of physical therapy and
one cortisone injection and that at his final treatment sessions, just seven months after
vaccination, “he was pain-free, had full ROM, and had returned completely to his
4

Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 8
‘premorbid level.’” Id. Respondent also argued that despite Petitioner’s assertion, Mr.
Gootee’s SIRVA had likely completely resolved seven months after vaccination, which
demonstrates that this was a mild case. Id. However, Respondent has not proposed a
specific number to be awarded for Petitioner’s pain and suffering, arguing instead that
“respondent has determined that his recommendation of a specific number has not
assisted the special masters in their determinations.” Opp. at 5.
Respondent distinguished the two cases cited by Petitioner, contending that in one
the relevant petitioner also suffered compensatory injuries which justified a higher award,
whereas the other petitioner was also awarded a sum for future pain and suffering,
demonstrating that the injury therein was prolonged. Opp. at 6. In the present case,
Petitioner treated for just seven months, justifying a lower award. Opp. at 10-11.
The pain and suffering awards in the 11 cases cited by Respondent range from
$30,000.00 to $65,000.00. Id. Respondent argues that these cases are the more
appropriate comparable cases, and that Petitioner should be awarded a sum within this
range. Opp. at 10.
IV. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include an award “[f]or
actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related
injury, an award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may
recover “actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment award
such expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no precise formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and
suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“Awards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award
for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3)
duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of
5

Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/07/25 Page 6 of 8
Health & Human Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
A special master may also look to prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the
resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in each case.
See, e.g., Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding
that “there is nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages
for pain and suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount
of damages in this case.”). And, of course, a special master may rely on his or her own
experience adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d
958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated the special masters would
use their accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of
individual claims). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering
is not determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
V. Appropriate Compensation in this SIRVA Case
a. Awareness of Suffering
Neither party disputes that that Mr. Gootee had full awareness of his suffering, and
I find that fact is supported by the record evidence.
b. Severity and Duration of Pain and Suffering
As I noted during the hearing, Mr. Gootee’s SIRVA injury did not require surgical
intervention (meaning a six-figure award is not called for). And the two cases cited by
Petitioner are not helpful comparable decisions, since both involve distinguishable special
circumstances. In Russano, for example, the petitioner’s SIRVA injury exacerbated
deficits in her non-injured arm due to her history of breast cancer. The Russano petitioner
also developed chondrodermatitis nodularis due to her SIRVA injury which necessitated
multiple cortisone injections. Russano, 2020 WL 3639804. In Rael, 2020 WL 901449, the
petitioner’s SIRVA injury persisted beyond the initial eight months of his treatment course
(with that petitioner still seeking treatment two years post-vaccination), leading to an
award for future pain and suffering for the duration of petitioner’s life. Neither one of these
special circumstances are present in Mr. Gootee’s case, and Petitioner’s argument that
his position as a business owner is a type of “special” circumstance that warrants a similar
award is simply not persuasive.
Respondent, by contrast, has cited to a number of cases that appeared to be good
comparables (and they would have been even more persuasive - had Respondent
proposed a specific amount of award). But simply citing to a range of cases and
6

Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/07/25 Page 7 of 8
requesting that I choose an award that is “consistent with previous mild cases for pain
and suffering” does not provide adequate aid in resolving the parties’ dispute.3 As has
been articulated in many cases, awarding an amount of pain and suffering is an art and
not a science, and it is thus incumbent upon the parties to express their views as to what
specific award is proper. As no two cases are identical, it is to be expected that awards
may deviate somewhat from the amounts that each party proposes, but I continue to look
to the parties to provide case law to support their proposed award and to achieve a body
of cases that are consistent, predictable, and fair.
Looking at Mr. Gootee’s specific circumstances, his SIRVA was on the very mild
end of the spectrum. Although Mr. Gootee described the ongoing pain and weakness in
his right shoulder, as well as how his injury had affected his ability to run his business
while he was seeking treatment, his injury mostly resolved in those seven months by his
own admission. Although Mr. Gootee argued during the hearing that his position was
more physical than a typical CEO position in that he was required to visit job construction
sites, there is still inadequate evidence in the record to demonstrate how his SIRVA injury
physically affected his job performance.
Those comparable decisions involving pain and suffering awards on the lower end
of the range – between $35,000 and $45,000,00 - appear to offer the most useful
guidance herein. And during the hearing, Respondent appeared to take the position that
the cases cited on the higher end of their range (near approximately $65,000.00) resulted
in too-high determinations for use in this case. Despite Respondent’s failure to propose
a specific award for Mr. Gootee’s pain and suffering, I find that an award on the lower end
of the range proposed by Respondent is more appropriate. (However, I caution
Respondent not to continue to use this method of arguing cases, as it is not helpful or
productive, in achieving an appropriate award in SIRVA cases). Thus, based on all of the
circumstances and evidence submitted, and in the interest of rough justice, I find that his
past pain and suffering warrants an award of $43,000.00.
The parties agree on the amount to be awarded to Mr. Gootee for his out-of-pocket
unreimburseable expenses, and I find that all his requested expenses are reasonable and
directly related to his SIRVA injury, and thus, award the full amount requested of $961.16.
3 I also do not deem meritorious Respondent’s contentions about the Program issuing unreasonably
generous pain and suffering awards. In his brief, Respondent explains that he “proffers his assessment of
the full value of damages” and argues that “[a]wards that significantly deviate from this full value incentivize
petitioners to reject respondent’s full-value proffers, confident that the court will always award more.” Opp.
at 5. It is equally possible that Respondent’s valuation of cases may not be properly considering what
awards are likely in Program cases. And it is otherwise not always the case that the court awards amounts
that are higher than what Respondent has proffered.
7

Case 1:22-vv-00827-UNJ Document 51 Filed 01/07/25 Page 8 of 8
CONCLUSION
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that $43,000.00
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering.4 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to $961.16, in actual
unreimbursable expenses.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $43,961.16, in the
form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all
damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
8