VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01396
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01396
Petitioner: Sherry Matthews
Filed: 2022-05-15
Decided: 2025-09-09
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-11-16
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 80929

AI-assisted case summary:
Sherry Matthews filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on September 28, 2022. She alleged that after receiving influenza and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines on November 16, 2020, she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), which is a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Ms. Matthews reported that she first noticed pain in her left shoulder the morning after her vaccinations. The respondent initially disputed whether the onset of pain met the 48-hour requirement for a Table SIRVA. However, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that the onset of Ms. Matthews' left shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and that she satisfied the other requirements for a compensable Table SIRVA injury, thus entitling her to compensation. The decision on entitlement was issued on June 17, 2024. Following the entitlement ruling, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of damages, leading to further briefing. On September 9, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision awarding Ms. Matthews $80,929.99. This award comprised $80,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $192.76 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $737.23 for vaccine-related Medicaid expenses. The Special Master considered the moderate pain levels, the procedure required (manipulation under general anesthesia), and Ms. Matthews' pre-existing conditions in determining the award. The public decision does not describe the specific symptoms, diagnostic tests, or the mechanism of injury beyond the general description of SIRVA. Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer of Conway, Homer, P.C., and the respondent was represented by Benjamin Rex Eisenberg of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Sherry Matthews received influenza and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines on November 16, 2020. She alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The Special Master found that Ms. Matthews established entitlement to compensation, determining that her pain onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and that her symptoms lasted more than six months, with no other condition explaining her symptoms. The public text does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name any medical experts. The Special Master awarded $80,929.99, consisting of $80,000.00 for pain and suffering, $192.76 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $737.23 for Medicaid expenses. The decision on entitlement was issued on June 17, 2024, and the decision awarding damages was issued on September 9, 2025. Petitioner's counsel was Ronald Craig Homer, and respondent's counsel was Benjamin Rex Eisenberg.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01396-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-06-17
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/15/2024) regarding 30 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1396V
SHERRY MATTHEWS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
Filed: May 15, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Rex Eisenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 28, 2022, Sherry Matthews 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving influenza (“flu”) and
pneumococcal conjugate vaccines on November 16, 2020. Petition at 1, 1 n.2, ¶ 2. She
asserts that she first noticed her left shoulder pain when she awoke the next morning. Id.
at ¶ 2.
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-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 2 of 11
Respondent disputes Petitioner has established pain onset timing consistent with
the requirements of a Table SIRVA. For the reasons discussed below, I find that the onset
of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and that she has
satisfied the other requirements of a compensable Table SIRVA injury. Petitioner is thus
entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
A few days after the claim’s initiation, Ms. Matthews filed declarations from herself,
her son, her neighbor, and an attorney for whom she worked as an independent
contractor,3 plus the medical records required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-15, filed
Oct. 4, 2022, ECF Nos. 6-7; see Section 11(c). On November 17, 2022, the case was
activated and assigned to the “Special Processing Unit” (OSM’s adjudicatory system for
resolution of cases deemed likely to settle). ECF No. 11.
Approximately ten months later, on September 20, 2023, Respondent expressed
a willingness to engage in settlement discussions. ECF No. 21. Having previously filed
updated medical records,4 Petitioner provided Respondent with a demand on November
17, 2023. ECF No. 24. Approximately two months later, however, the parties informed me
that they had reached an impasse. ECF No. 26.
On March 14, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report opposing
compensation. ECF No. 27. Emphasizing the more general description of pain onset
Petitioner initially provided and amount of time (five and one-half months) that had passed
before her more specific description provided to the orthopedist, Respondent insisted that
Petitioner had failed to establish the pain onset needed for a Table SIRVA. Id. at 5-6.
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Finding of Fact Regarding Onset
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table
SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XII.A. (pneumococcal conjugate vaccination) & XIV.B.
3 All declarations were signed under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Exhibits 10-15.
4 Petitioner filed her updated medical records on August 7 and 30, 2023. Exhibits 16-18, ECF No. 16; Exhibit
19, ECF No. 18.
2

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 3 of 11
(influenza vaccination); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the
QAI).
A. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations
for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y
3

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 4 of 11
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within
the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
B. Analysis
I make the onset finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, affidavits or declarations, and additional evidence filed. Specifically, I base the
findings on the following evidence:
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner (a massage therapist) suffered from high
blood pressure, arthritis, back and pain, muscle cramping and spasms, and
high blood pressure. Exhibit 2 at 21-43.5 In June 2020, Petitioner
experienced a fall and injury to her left thumb. Exhibit 4 at 6; see also Exhibit
2 at 22-26 (primary care provider (“PCP”) visit to discuss x-ray results).
• Since 2016, Petitioner has sought chiropractic treatment for her thoracic
and back pain. Exhibit 3 at 1-26. X-rays, taken in late January 2020,
revealed degenerative disease “at multiple levels within the mid-thoracic
5 I will cite to all exhibits in this case using the pagination as shown in the Bates stamp entries which differs
by one page from the pagination provided by CM/ECF.
4

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 5 of 11
spine.” Exhibit 4 at 5. Petitioner has taken one 100mg tablet of Celebrex6
twice daily since early 2020. Exhibit 2 at 20, 22, 27, 32.
• On November 16, 2020, Petitioner received the flu and pneumococcal
conjugate vaccines intramuscularly in her left deltoid at a Rite Aid
Pharmacy. Exhibit 1; Exhibit 5 at 8-9.
• Approximately two months later, on January 19, 2021, Petitioner visited her
PCP for multiple issues, including left arm pain. Exhibit 2 at 15. She reported
that she “had a shot in left arm on 11-16-2020 . . . [n]ow she is having
problems lifting the arm/painfull [sic].” Id. The PCP prescribed a seven-day
Medrol therapy pack. Id.
• Three months later, on April 21, 2021, Petitioner returned to her PCP for
follow-up for her left arm pain and refill of her Celebrex. Exhibit 2 at 10. She
reported that her arm was “still in pain” from her November 2020 vaccine.
The PCP assessed Petitioner as suffering from a cramp or spasm, refilled
her Celebrex, and referred her to orthopedics. Id.
• Approximately one week later, on April 29, 2021, Petitioner visited the
orthopedist. Exhibit 6 at 82. In this record, both Petitioner’s pain and
vaccinations are listed as occurring on November 6, 2020, rather than the
correct date of November 16, 2020. Attributing her pain to the vaccines she
received, Petitioner reported that her “[p]ain started [the] very next day and
continues.” Id. Assessing her pain severity as five out of ten, she
characterized it as aching and tingling. Id.
• After reviewing x-rays showing no abnormalities and observing “motion
restriction in all planes,” the orthopedist diagnosed Petitioner with left
shoulder pain and adhesive capsulitis. Exhibit 6 at 83. He prescribed
physical therapy (“PT”), adding that Petitioner should consider manipulation
under anesthesia if her symptoms did not resolve. Id.
• On May 5, 2021, Petitioner attended her first PT session. Exhibit 6 at 51-
55.She again attributed her left shoulder pain to the vaccines she received,
stating that “shortly following those injections she started having severe
shoulder pain.” Id. at 53. She described pain that worsening when reaching
across and overhead and improved with rest. Id.
6 Celebrex is a “trademark for a preparation of celecoxib, . . . a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug of the
COX-2 inhibitors group, used for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis,
administered orally.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY at 312 (32th ed. 2012).
5

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 6 of 11
• Upon examination, Petitioner exhibited some range of motion (“ROM”) pain
and weakness. Exhibit 6 at 54. Noting that he could not rule out rotator cuff
pathology, the therapist stated that he observed no labral related symptoms.
Id. He set PT goals and provided Petitioner with a home exercise program
(“HEP”). Id. at 42.
• Petitioner attended three more PT sessions in May 2021, showing only
some slight improvements in ROM. Exhibit 6 at 39-50.
• On May 27, 2021, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist. Exhibit 6 at 35-38.
The orthopedist assessed Petitioner as “ha[ving] gained some active
motion, but still ha[ving] limited painful motion.” Id. at 37. He listed
manipulation under general anesthesia followed by further PT as the next
step. Id.
• On June 21, 2021, Petitioner underwent a left shoulder manipulation.
Exhibit 6 at 34. Following the administration of general anesthesia, full ROM
was achieved, and Petitioner was administered a steroid injection into her
shoulder joint. She “left the operating room in good condition.” Id.
• Thereafter, Petitioner attended five additional PT sessions. Exhibit 6 at 8-
28. At her last PT session on July 6, 2021, she reported a dull ache at a
level of one out of ten. Id. at 9-10. Noting Petitioner was “responding well to
MT[7] with reduced pain and increased mobility,” the therapist assessed
Petitioner as having “significantly increased all ranges of motion . . . [and
meeting] all goals, except for one.[8]” Id. at 10.
• The next day, on July 7, 2021, Petitioner returned to the orthopedist,
reporting dull, aching pain at a level of three out of ten. Exhibit 6 at 6. Upon
examination, Petitioner exhibited “near full active/passive motion, . . . [and]
only slight internal rotation deficit” when the orthopedist placed her arm
behind her back. Id. at 7. The orthopedist characterized Petitioner as “doing
well” and instructed her to continue her HEP as needed. Id.
7 This abbreviation appears to be a reference to manual therapy which is mentioned just above the entry in
question. See Exhibit 6 at 10.
8 This goal, listed as UTBR, may be a reference to greater tuberosity tenderness. Compare Exhibit 6 at 10
(abbreviation) with id. at 11, 50 (lists of goals).
6

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 7 of 11
• Updated medical records show only subsequent chiropractic treatment for
back and knee pain (Exhibit 18), and primary care treatment of unrelated
conditions (Exhibit 19).
• Two of the signed declarations Petitioner provided address the specifics
surrounding the information contained in her vaccine record (Exhibit 11) and
the basic requirements of Section 11(c) (Exhibit 12).
• In her first declaration, signed on September 25, 2022, Petitioner described
her injury and symptoms in detail. Exhibit 10. She reported feeling soreness
when she woke the morning after her vaccinations, and left shoulder pain
when performing certain movements such as reaching into the refrigerator
for the milk. Id. at ¶ 2. Stating that she continued to feel pain over the next
few days, Petitioner maintained that she was reluctant to seek medical care
in part due to the ongoing COVID pandemic. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. Petitioner attested
that she finally experienced improvement after the lidocaine injection and
manipulation (id. at ¶ 8), but still “experience[d] some pain from time to time”
(id. at ¶ 9).
• A cardiologist in New York City (Exhibit 13 at ¶ 1), Petitioner’s son confirmed
that she “reached out to [him] on multiple occasions beginning in November
2020 with complaints of severe left arm pain and limited range of motion
after receiving the flu and pneumonia vaccines” (id. at ¶ 2). He echoed
Petitioner’s claims related to her initial reluctance to seek treatment and
medical care she received. Id. at ¶¶ 3-5. He explained that his mother
related this information to him, complaining of her left arm pain for the
majority of time during their phone calls at that time. Id. at ¶ 6.
• Petitioner’s neighbor recalled her informing him of her vaccine-related injury
in November 2020. Exhibit 14 at ¶ 1. He attested that he could tell Petitioner
was in pain from her facial expressions and observed difficulties performing
certain tasks (such as carrying laundry or groceries). Id. at ¶ 2. The neighbor
stated that he helped Petitioner with these tasks for several months. Id.
• An attorney (for whom Petitioner provided word processing and secretarial
services on a part-time basis) recalled her describing her pain, from the
vaccines she received, in November 2020. Exhibit 15 at ¶¶ 1-2. He echoed
Petitioner’s assertions regarding her initial reluctance to seeks treatment.
Id. at ¶ 3.
7

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 8 of 11
The record as a whole supports Petitioner’s description of left shoulder pain
beginning around the time of her vaccinations. When seeking treatment from her PCP,
orthopedist, and physical therapist, Petitioner consistently attributed her left shoulder pain
to the flu and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines she received a few months earlier.
Exhibit 2 at 15, 10; Exhibit 6 at 82, 53 (in chronologic order). At her second visit to the
orthopedist, on April 29, 2021, Petitioner stating that her pain began the morning after
vaccination, placing onset within 48 hours of vaccination. Exhibit 6 at 82.
Although Respondent correctly observed that this second appointment with the
orthopedist occurred more than six months post-vaccination, the lack of further details in
Petitioner’s earlier medical records can be attributed, at least in part, to the cursory nature
of her PCP’s medical records. A review of those records show they contain only very
basic information regarding Petitioner’s treatment. See generally Exhibit 2. And
Petitioner’s clear attribution of her pain to the vaccinations she received even in those
earlier records provides persuasive evidence of a close in time pain onset. See, e.g.,
Exhibit 2 at 10 (noting she was “still in pain” from her November vaccine9 (emphasis
added)).
While these entries were based upon information provided by Petitioner, they still
should be afforded greater weight than more current representations, as they were
uttered contemporaneously with Petitioner’s injury for the purposes of obtaining medical
care. The Federal Circuit has stated that “[m]edical records, in general, warrant
consideration as trustworthy evidence . . . [as they] contain information supplied to or by
health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions.” Cucuras,
993 F.2d at 1528 (emphasis added). Information provided by Petitioner to a treater and
contained in a contemporaneous record deserves weight, and should not be considered
subjective merely because it came from a patient, rather than physician.
Furthermore, there is a dearth of medical record evidence supporting a later pain
onset. And the fact that Petitioner’s pain was not immediate is not lethal to Petitioner’s
claim, because a claimant only need demonstrate the onset of pain within 48 hours of
vaccination.
Although Petitioner delayed seeking treatment for two months, that delay does not
provide the strong evidence undermining onset that Respondent contends. It is common
for SIRVA claimants to delay treatment, thinking his/her injury will resolve on its own.
Additionally, Petitioner was not seen during this 64-day period for any other illness or
9 Although this entry mistakenly references only a single vaccine, this simple error does not diminish the
probative value of the provided information. See Exhibit 2 at 10. Both vaccines Petitioner received are
covered by the Vaccine Program. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) XII.A. (pneumococcal conjugate vaccination)
& XIV.B. (influenza vaccination).
8

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 9 of 11
medical condition. Such intervening treatment evidence can in many cases either
corroborate a petitioner’s claim or undermine it – but it is totally absent here.
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of
Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
III. Additional Requirements for Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the pain onset
(discussed above in Section II), symptoms duration, and the lack of other award or
settlement,10 a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table
criteria, in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by
the vaccination she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a Hep B vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(VIII)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
10 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
9

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 10 of 11
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10) (2017).
B. Analysis
Respondent has stated no further objections to compensation, and I find Petitioner
has otherwise satisfied all criteria for a Table SIRVA injury following receipt of the flu and
pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. There is no evidence of prior left shoulder pain,
inflammation, or dysfunction or an alternative cause for Petitioner’s symptoms. See 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i), (iv) (first and fourth QAI criteria). And Petitioner exhibited pain
and limitations in ROM solely in her left, injured shoulder. E.g., Exhibit 2 at 15, 10 (PCP
visits); Exhibit 6 at 82, 53 (orthopedic and PT records); see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii)
(third QAI criterion).
As I have determined in this ruling, the record supports a finding that Petitioner
suffered pain within 48 hours of vaccination. See supra Section II.B.; 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(iii) (second QAI criterion). Additionally, the medical records show Petitioner
suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six-months. Exhibit 6 at 37
(continued limitations in ROM at the May 27, 2021 orthopedic visit); see Section
11(c)(1)(D)(i) (six-month severity requirement). And the vaccine record shows Petitioner
received the flu and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines at a Walmart Pharmacy in Little
Rock, Arkansas. Exhibit 1; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a covered
vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration within the United States or its
territories). Furthermore, there is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award
10

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 33 Filed 06/17/24 Page 11 of 11
for his injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Thus, Petitioner has
satisfied all requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
IV. Appropriate Amount of Compensation
Although I have found Petitioner entitled to compensation, I do not expect the
amount awarded for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering to be significant (although it may
well be closer to the six-figure sum often awarded in cases involving surgery). Throughout
the medical records, Petitioner reported moderate pain levels, from three to five, and often
only in association with movement. Despite the slow progress gained from PT sessions
in November and December 2020, Petitioner received good relief from the manipulation
and injection she received in June 2021, and only five PT sessions attended thereafter.
And this procedure is less invasive than arthroscopic surgery.
Still, Petitioner received little relief from her initial PT sessions in November and
December 2020. And her reluctance to seek medical care during late 2020 and early
2021, is understandable considering the worldwide COVID pandemic, ongoing since early
2020. Although not as involved as arthroscopic surgery, Petitioner’s procedure still
required the administration of general anesthesia, not often required in SIRVA cases.
Thus, these factors equate to a moderate SIRVA Injury, albeit involving a light/limited
surgical procedure.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01396-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-09-09
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/13/2025) regarding 43 DECISION of Special Master, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1396V
SHERRY MATTHEWS,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 13, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Rex Eisenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 28, 2022, Sherry Matthews 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving influenza and
pneumococcal conjugate vaccines on November 16, 2020. Petition at 1, 1 n.2, ¶ 2. After
I determined Petitioner was entitled to compensation, the parties were unable to resolve
damages on their own,3 so I ordered briefing on the matter.
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).
3 Approximately one month after I determined Petitioner was entitled to compensation, the parties informed
me that they had reached an impasse in their damages discussions and requested that I set a briefing
schedule. Status Report, filed June 26, 2024, ECF No. 34.

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 2 of 12
For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award of
damages in the amount of $80,929.99, representing $80,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, plus the agreed-upon $192.76 for past unreimbursable expenses, and
$737.23 for all vaccine-related Medicaid expenses.
I. 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)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this 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. Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
2

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 3 of 12
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).
Graves 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.
II. Prior SIRVA Compensation Within SPU4
A. Data Regarding Compensation in SPU SIRVA Cases
SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As
of July 1, 2025, 4,983 SPU SIRVA cases have resolved since the inception of SPU more
than ten years before. Compensation has been awarded in the vast majority of cases
(4,817), with the remaining 166 cases dismissed.
2,744 of the compensated SPU SIRVA cases were the result of a ruling that the
petitioner was entitled to compensation (as opposed to an informal settlement), and
therefore reflect full compensation.5 In only 310 of these cases, however, was the amount
of damages determined by a special master in a reasoned decision.6 As I have previously
4 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.
5 The remaining 2,073 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
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.
6 The rest of these cases resulting in damages after concession were either reflective of a proffer by
Respondent (2,403 cases) or stipulation (31 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.
3

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 4 of 12
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.7
The data for all categories of damages decisions described above reflect the
expected differences in outcome, summarized as follows:
Damages Proffered Stipulated Stipulated8
Decisions by Damages Damages Agreement
Special Master
Total Cases 310 2,403 31 2,073
Lowest $25,000.00 $4,000.00 $37,013.60 $1,000.00
1st Quartile $67,020.04 $60,000.00 $90,000.00 $30,000.00
Median $91,290.04 $79,444.74 $115,772.83 $50,000.00
3rd Quartile $125,000.00 $106,293.26 $161,501.20 $75,000.00
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 310 SPU SIRVA cases in which damages were determined via reasoned
decision, compensation for a petitioner’s actual or past pain and suffering varied from
$25,000.00 to $215,000.00, with $90,000.00 as the median amount. Only ten of these
cases involved an award for future pain and suffering, with yearly awards ranging from
$250.00 to $1,500.00.9 In one of these cases, the future pain and suffering award was
limited by the statutory pain and suffering cap.10
7 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).
8 Two awards were for an annuity only, the exact amounts which were not determined at the time of
judgment.
9 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).
10 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
4

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 5 of 12
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 nine cases,
petitioners provided sufficient evidence of permanent injuries to warrant yearly
compensation for future or projected pain and suffering.
III. The Parties’ Arguments
The parties agree Petitioner should be awarded $192.76 for past unreimbursed
expenses, and $737.23 to satisfy the Medicaid lien in this case. Petitioner’s Memorandum
in Support of Damages (“Brief”) at 10-11, 19-20, ECF No. 40; Respondent’s Damages
Brief (“Opp.”) at 2 n.1, 13, ECF No. 41; Petitioner’s Reply to Opp. (“Reply”) at 7, ECF No.
42. Thus, the only area of disagreement is the amount of compensation which should be
awarded for Petitioner’s pain and suffering. Petitioner seeks $105,000.00, and
Respondent argues for an award of $70,000.00. Brief at 19; Opp. at 2, 13; Reply at 7.
Characterizing her prior condition as healthy (Brief at 2) and her treatment as
“lengthy and involved” (id. at 13), Petitioner argues that her SIRVA has greatly impacted
application of the statutory cap before any projected pain and suffering award is reduced to net present
value).
5

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 6 of 12
her life, preventing her from returning to her work as a massage therapist (her profession
for 33 years), following the COVID Pandemic. Id. at 11-12, 14-15. Relying upon her sworn
declaration, and medical visits with a new PCP and orthopedic surgeon in July and August
2024, respectively, she asserts that she continues to suffer the residual effects of her
SIRVA, more than four years post-vaccination. Id. at 8-10 (citing Ex. 10; Ex. 20 at 7-8;
Ex. 21 at 8-9).
Petitioner favorably compares the facts and circumstances in her case to those
suffered by the petitioners in Bidlack and Selling11 - decisions involving the same
procedure she underwent (a manipulation under general anesthesia) and featuring past
pain and suffering awards of $100,000.00 and $105,000.00, respectively. Brief at 16-17.
She also asserts that the severity and duration of her injury is similar to that of the
petitioners in Juno, Dezurik, and Weed12 - decisions involving arthroscopy surgery and
awards within the same range. Brief at 17-18. Seeming to equate these procedures, she
argues that the more immediate treatment sought by the petitioners in the cases involving
arthroscopic surgery is offset by the timing of her injury – during the Pandemic, the greater
impact on her personal life, and the longer duration of her injury. Id. at 18-19.
In contrast, Respondent insists that Petitioner’s pain was moderate, and course of
treatment was brief. Opp. at 7. Portraying her treatment as concentrated primarily in May
and June 2021, when she attended a total nine physical therapy sessions prior to and
after manipulation, Respondent asserts Petitioner experienced a “full recovery only eight
months post-vaccination.” Id. He discounts her return for treatment in July 2024, following
a three-year gap, and emphasizes the less evasive nature of shoulder manipulation when
compared to arthroscopic surgery. Id. at 7-8.
In addition to the two cases involving shoulder manipulations that Petitioner cite
(Bidlack and Selling), Respondent offers Boyd13 – a decision involving the same
procedure, but with a pain and suffering award of $90,000.00, as instructive. He insists
that the petitioners in all three cases suffered symptoms which were more severe,
required greater treatment, and continued for a longer duration. Id. at 9-10.
11 Bidlack v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0093V, 2023 WL 2885332 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr.
11, 2023); Selling v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0588V, 2019 WL 3425224 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
May 2, 2019).
12 Juno v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0643V, 2022 WL 17850717 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 2,
2022) (awarding $100,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Dezurik v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
20-1357V, 2022 WL 5419845 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 6, 2022) (awarding $105,000.00 for past pain and
suffering); Weed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1473V, 2021 WL 1711800 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 30, 2021) (awarding $105,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
13 Boyd v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0850V, 2024 WL 4720106 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 8,
2024) (awarding $90,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
6

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 7 of 12
Respondent also argues that “[c]omparisons in cases involving arthroscopic
surgery are inapposite.” Opp. at 10. To support this assertion, he cites my prior language
regarding the more invasive nature of arthroscopic surgery. Id. at 10-11 (citing Rafferty v.
Sec,y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
May 21, 2020)). Claiming that manipulation under general anesthesia is not always
indicative of severe pain levels but can be mandated “to prevent a patient from engaging
in active resistance to movement, relax spastic muscles, and allow manipulation through
a full range of motion” (Opp. at 11), Respondent contends that such treatment “sits at the
mid-point between surgery and physical therapy” (id. at 12).
Regarding Petitioner’s claim that her SIRVA impacted her ability to work,
Respondent argues that “[g]iven [her] age, unrelated conditions, and medical conditions,
it is unlikely that she would have continued to work as a massage therapist after 2021.”
Opp. at 13. He notes that at the time of her vaccination, Petitioner was 65 years old and
working for a law firm, performing secretarial work. Id. at 12.
In her reply, Petitioner criticizes Respondent’s general argument that awards which
deviate from his assessment value of the case incentivize future petitioners to reject
proposed proffers and thus, undermine the Vaccine Program’s primary purpose of
quickly, easily, consistently, and generously compensating injured persons. Reply at 2-3
(citing Opp. at 6 n.2). Rather, she claims it is Respondent who is significantly undervaluing
Petitioner’s pain and suffering award by proposing an amount ($70,000.00) that has
routinely been awarded in SIRVA cases that did not require either procedure – Kahler,
Huber, Cavalier, and Morrison-Langehough14 and is $20,000.00 less than the Boyd
award. Reply at 3-5.
Petitioner also criticizes Respondent’s attempt “to significantly distinguish
[manipulation under general anesthesia] from arthroscopic surgery to justify his proposed
pain and suffering award” (Reply at 5), claiming that this stance conflicts with prior
damages decisions and shows a lack of understanding of the seriousness of
manipulation. Id. at 5-6. To support her assertion that the procedures are comparable,
she cites an article warning of the potential ill effects of forced manipulation and stresses
that the dangers of undergoing general anesthesia are equally applicable to both
procedures. Id. at 6-7.
14 Kahler v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1938V, 2024 WL 1928451 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
27, 2024); Huber v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0091V, 2023 WL 8187306 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 26, 2023); Cavalier v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0389V, 2023 WL 5500404 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 25, 2023); Morrison-Langehough v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1103V, 2022 WL
1863924 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 14, 2022).
7

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 8 of 12
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact his
awareness of her injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the severity and duration of
Petitioner’s injury.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole to include the filed
medical records, affidavits, and sworn declarations and all assertions made by the parties
in written documents. I consider prior awards for pain and suffering in both SPU and non-
SPU SIRVA cases and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases. However, I
base my determination on the circumstances of this case.
A thorough review of the medical records reveals that Ms. Matthews suffered a
SIRVA injury accompanied by moderate to mild pain, with more significant limitations in
ROM. The SIRVA resolved within approximately eight months, following treatment that
consisted of oral steroids (Ex. 2 at 15); manipulation and steroid injection while under
general anesthesia (Ex. 6 at 63); and a total of nine PT sessions prior to and following
the procedure.15 Although Petitioner insists that she continued to experience symptoms
thereafter, she did not return for treatment (or even mention any left shoulder issues) until
July 2024,16 almost three years later and more than 18 months after the filing of her
vaccine claim. Thus, the record does not support the longer course duration that
Petitioner advocates.
Prior to vaccination, Petitioner suffered unrelated conditions which also caused her
pain. In March 2016, she sought chiropractic treatment for moderate thoracic and back
pain, characterized as “daily and intermittent,” that began years earlier from an unknown
cause, “possibly work.” Ex. 3 at 9. Thereafter, she continued to attend chiropractic
appointments, at least once per year, both prior to and after vaccination. Id. at 11-31.
Petitioner’s back pain (characterized as muscle spasms) was also mentioned in the
primary care provider (“PCP”) medical records from multiple visits in 2020, along with a
history of arthritis and complaint of painful, stiff, and swollen joints in January 2020. Ex. 2
15 Prior to undergoing manipulation, Petitioner attended four PT sessions. Ex. 6 at 35-55. She attended five
PT sessions post-procedure. Id. at 9-27.
16 Although Petitioner began treating with a new PCP in April 2024 (Ex. 20 at 54), she did not mention any
left shoulder issues until a visit on July 19, 2024, when she requested pain medication and an orthopedic
referral (id. at 7). At the April 2024 appointment, she discussed only her fibromyalgia and lower back pain
- for which she had a medical marijuana permit. Id. at 50-55. On August 14, 2024, Petitioner was seen by
an orthopedic surgeon, who instructed her to continue a home exercise program. Ex. 21 at 6-9.
8

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 9 of 12
at 37-38, 32, 27, 22 (in chronologic order). Petitioner was prescribed Celebrex17 for
cramps and muscle spasms in January 2020 (Ex. 2 at 38), and Mobic18 (depicted as a
refill) in June 2020 (Ex. 2 at 22).
Throughout the medical records, it is noted that these prior conditions interfered
with Petitioner’s work as a massage therapist. When she first sought chiropractic care in
2016, she reported that her thoracic and back pain was “aggravated by work at MT[19] and
cooking” (Ex. 3 at 9) and “limits her giving massages to about 3 hours per day” (id. at 11).
When complaining of joint pain in January 2020, Petitioner stated that her daily pain
affected her ability to work “to a moderate degree.” Ex. 2 at 27-28. During chiropractic
visits in 2017 through early 2020, Petitioner sometimes attributed her increased thoracic
and back pain and need for treatment to “working/giving massages” (id. at 23) and
“standing after giving [a] long massage” (id. at 24). Thus, Petitioner’s assertion – that she
was unable to return to her job as a massage therapist solely because of her SIRVA, is
unpersuasive.
Additionally, Petitioner’s claim that her initial two-month delay in seeking treatment
was not an indicator of the mildness of her symptoms, but rather due only to the ongoing
Pandemic,20 is similarly not supported by the record in this case. In June 2021 (now well
after the start of the Pandemic), Petitioner visited her PCP for a four-month follow-up of
her previously reported back pain. Ex. 2 at 20. Thus, Petitioner’s delay can be attributed,
at least in part, to the likelihood that her symptoms were not significant enough to warrant
more immediate treatment.
Although there is no notation regarding the severity of her pain when Petitioner
first sought treatment on January 2021, she appears to have either experienced milder
symptoms initially or to have gained relief from the oral steroids prescribed at that visit.
See Ex 2 at 15. She did not seek further treatment until more than three months later, on
April 21, 2021. Ex. 2 at 9. Seen by an orthopedist on April 29, 2021, Petitioner reported
pain at a level of five out of ten, was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis, and referred to
PT. Ex. 6 at 58-59. And she continued to report that same moderate pain level at four PT
17 Celebrex is a “trademark for a preparation of celecoxib, . . . a nonsteroidal inflammatory drug of the COX-
2 inhibitors group, used for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis; administered
orally.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S”) at 312 (32th ed. 2012).
18 Mobic is a “trademark for a preparation of meloxicam” (DORLAND’S at 1171), “a nonsteroidal inflammatory
drug used in the treatment of osteoarthritis; administered orally (id at 1126).
19 Presumedly this abbreviation refers to massage therapy.
20 The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020. See Centers for
Disease Control COVID-19 Timeline, at https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html (last visited
July 29, 2025).
9

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 10 of 12
sessions and a PCP visit in May 2021. Id. at 35-55 (reporting pain levels of five, and in
one case four).
Petitioner’s pain lessened, however, during five PT sessions following the
manipulation performed on June 21, 2021. Ex. 6 at 5-31. By her discharge from PT on
July 6, 2021, she reported pain at a level of one out of ten, had “significantly increased all
range of motion, . . . ha[d] met all goals,” but one. Id. at 10. Still, Petitioner obtained this
relief only after consenting to forced manipulation and the administration of a steroid
injection while under general anesthesia – treatment which shows, at a minimum, that her
ROM was markedly limited. Although not as invasive as arthroscopic surgery, this
procedure is indicative of a more significant SIRVA. It is therefore a factor that should be
weighed when determining any pain and suffering award, dictating a lesser award when
compared to a similarly situated case involving arthroscopic surgery, and a greater award
when compared to a case in which no procedure was required.
The surgical cases Petitioner cites are not supportive of the damages amount she
requests. In addition to the need for arthroscopic surgery, those claimants had courses
of illness with other factors - more immediate initial treatment, greater pain levels, and for
Dezurik and Juno, more extensive PT- justifying a greater pain and suffering award. Juno,
2022 WL 17850717, at *2-4; Dezurik, 2022 WL 5419845, at *4-5; Weed, 2021 WL
1711800, at *3-5.
Although Petitioner’s argument that her pain and suffering award should be greater
than in cases not involving either type of procedure is credible, she did not identify the
best examples to support this proposition. All mentioned cases involve other factors also
supportive of a greater award – SIRVAs which were more severe, lasted for a longer
duration, and were accompanied by serious complicating factors. Kahler, 2024 WL
1928451, at *12-15; Huber, 2023 WL 8187306, at *2-5; Cavalier, 2023 WL 5500404, at
*5-6; Morrison-Langehough, 2022 WL 1863924, at *9-10. Thus, although I find
Respondent’s proposed amount of $70,000.00 is too low, it does not deviate from what
would be fair by as wide a margin as Petitioner suggests.
When comparing Petitioner’s case to others involving manipulation under general
anesthesia, I find that an award less than the $90,000.00 featured in Boyd is appropriate,
given the evidence. Although I recognized the occasional inconsistency and sometimes
milder nature of the symptoms suffered by the Boyd petitioner, I assessed his symptom
duration as four years. Boyd, 2024 WL 4720106, at *12-13. Petitioner argues that the
Boyd petitioner’s incarceration gave him ready access to medical care (Reply at 4-5), but
I noted there that he “encountered some delays in receiving treatment due to
circumstances outside of his control.” Boyd, 2024 WL 4720106, at *12. For example, the
Boyd petitioner was noy seen by an orthopedist until more than 20 months post-
10

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 11 of 12
vaccination. Id. at *3-4. And he did not gain the significant relief Petitioner did from her
forced manipulation and injection. Id. at *4-5.
Also instructive is Kent - a case not involving either kind of procedure, but sharing
several common traits. Like Petitioner in this case, the Kent petitioner delayed seeking
treatment for several months, developed significant limitations in her ROM, and was
ultimately diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis. However, the Kent petitioner’s pain levels
were more severe, and PT was more extensive (32 sessions over five months). Kent v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0073V, 2019 WL 5579493, at *11-12 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2019). And she relied upon PT only, due in part, to a fear of needles.
Id. at *5.
Were it not for these differences, I would not equate these cases. Choosing to
undergo any procedure involving general anesthesia, versus a reliance on PT only, is
indicative of more severe pain and suffering. Here, they are sufficient to counter
Petitioner’s willingness to undergo the riskier, albeit ultimately successful, procedure of
forced manipulation and steroid injection under general anesthesia. Thus, I find Petitioner
should receive a similar pain and suffering: $80,000.00.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find that $80,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.21 I also find that Petitioner
is entitled to $192.76 in actual unreimbursable expenses paid by Petitioner and
$737.23 in vaccine-related Medicaid expenses.
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $80,929.99 to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section
15(a).
21 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)).
11

Case 1:22-vv-01396-UNJ Document 47 Filed 09/09/25 Page 12 of 12
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
22 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