VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01479
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01479
Petitioner: Donna L. Clark
Filed: 2022-10-11
Decided: 2025-09-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-10
Condition: right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 60000

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 11, 2022, Donna L. Clark filed a petition seeking compensation for a right shoulder injury related to an influenza vaccination administered at CVS on October 10, 2019. She was nearly 58 years old and worked around nursing-home patients.

The vaccination record listed the left deltoid, but Ms. Clark consistently sought care for the right shoulder. On October 28, 2019, she told her primary-care provider that the shot had been given in her right shoulder and that the pain began right after vaccination, became progressively achy, interfered with movement and sleep, and limited abduction and extension to about 90 degrees. Prednisone helped. Orthopedic examination two days later showed positive Neer and Hawkins maneuvers and findings consistent with rotator-cuff inflammation or a local vaccine reaction. When the pain returned, an MRI showed supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinopathy with edema and bursal fluid but no tear. She underwent physical therapy and received a subacromial steroid injection. Her treatment records described pain with overhead movement, sleeping, sweeping, vacuuming, and repetitive work, with eventual resolution by about September 2020.

Chief Special Master Corcoran credited the medical records over the later-corrected pharmacy notation and found it more likely than not that the vaccine was administered in the right arm. He concluded that Ms. Clark satisfied the Table SIRVA requirements: no relevant prior right shoulder condition, onset within 48 hours, symptoms confined to the vaccinated shoulder, and residual effects lasting more than six months.

On September 10, 2025, the Chief Special Master awarded $60,000.00 for past pain and suffering. He characterized the injury as relatively mild, conservatively treated, and resolved in about eleven and a half months. Ms. Clark was represented by Steven K. Jambois.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine, October 10, 2019, age nearly 58, causing right shoulder SIRVA. ENTITLEMENT GRANTED and COMPENSATED. Key evidence: despite a CVS record listing left deltoid, contemporaneous medical records repeatedly described right shoulder pain after a right-sided flu shot, immediate/progressive pain, limited abduction and extension, positive Neer/Hawkins findings, MRI showing tendinopathy/edema/bursal fluid without tear, steroid response, physical therapy, and treatment through September 2020. Chief Special Master Corcoran found the right-sided situs and Table SIRVA requirements proven. Award: $60,000 for pain and suffering only. Attorney Steven K. Jambois. Decision September 10, 2025.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01479-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-10-20
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/10/2025) regarding 45 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION of Special Master ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1479V
DONNA L. CLARK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: September 10, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Steven K. Jambois, Kralovec, Jambois and Schwartz, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 11, 2022, Donna L. Clark 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 a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) following receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 10, 2019. Petition
(ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Office of Special Masters (“OSM”)’s Special
Processing Unit (“the SPU”). For the reasons set forth below, I find that the at-issue
vaccine was most likely administered in Petitioner’s right arm, as alleged, and she is
otherwise entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA. I also award $60,000.00 for past
pain and suffering.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 12
I. Procedural History
In July 2023, the case was assigned to the SPU (an adjudicatory system for
expedited resolution of certain Vaccine Act claims). ECF No. 21. Respondent formally
opposed compensation, initially arguing that the claim was untimely. Combined Rule 4(c)
Report and Motion to Dismiss filed May 6, 2024 (ECF No. 29); but see Order entered
Aug. 19, 2024 (ECF No. 30) (denying the motion to dismiss because the petition had been
timely filed immediately after a legal holiday).
Respondent then argued that the at-issue vaccine had been administered in
Petitioner’s non-injured left arm, according to vaccine administration records (Ex. 9,
obtained by subpoena after the petition’s filing) – which would confound a right-sided
SIRVA allegation. Amended Rule 4(c) Report filed Sept. 18, 2024 (ECF No. 31). The
parties have now briefed entitlement for a right SIRVA Table injury, and in the event that
Petitioner so prevails, the appropriate award of damages for such an injury. Petitioner’s
Brief filed Dec. 6, 2024 (ECF No. 35); Respondent’s Response filed Feb. 21, 2025 (ECF
No. 39).3 The matter is ripe for adjudication.
II. Evidence4
A. Medical Records
At the relevant time, Petitioner was nearly 58 years old and held a job working with
nursing home patients. Ex. 2 at 32; Ex. 7 at 23. She had no history of shoulder pain or
dysfunction. See generally Ex. 7; Ex. 11 at 215-28.5
Petitioner received the at-issue flu vaccine on October 10, 2019, at a CVS
pharmacy. The vaccine consent and administration record contains signatures from
Petitioner and the immunizing pharmacist, as well as pre-printed information about the
3 Petitioner did not take her opportunity to file a Reply. It is also noted that I considered the case for
resolution via an expedited hearing at a “Motions Day,” and the parties confirmed that the only issues in
dispute were entitlement and past pain and suffering. But due to the parties’ scheduling conflicts for Motions
Days planned for August and September 2025, see ECF Nos. 41 and 44, the case is hereby decided on
the written record.
4 While I have not specifically addressed every medical record, or all arguments presented in the parties’
briefs, I have fully considered all records as well as arguments presented by both parties.
5 When addressing Petitioner’s care at the Springfield Clinic, this opinion cites to the certified and updated
records contained in Ex. 11 filed Feb. 7, 2024 (ECF No. 27-1), in contrast to the parties, who cited to earlier
exhibits containing many of the same records.
2

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 12
vaccine including a site of “Left Deltoid.” Ex. 9 at 14, 16;6 accord id. at 2 (electronic list of
vaccines provided at CVS).
Thirteen (13) days later, on October 23, 2019, Petitioner was seen at the
Springfield Clinic, for management of anemia – but her only complaint was “some
shoulder discomfort after receiving influenza vaccine.” Ex. 11 at 212. No corresponding
shoulder exam, assessment, or treatment was provided. Id. at 213-14.7
Five days later on October 28, 2019, Petitioner returned to the Springfield Clinic,
reporting receipt of a flu shot “through CVS… within the right shoulder,” followed “right
after” by right shoulder pain, which had “progressively gotten more achy,” and persisted
for 18 days. Ex. 11 at 208. She reported pain with movement and difficulty sleeping, but
she reportedly could not take over-the-counter pain relief medication. Id. A physical
examination of the shoulder, focusing on range of motion (“ROM”), found “very limited
abduction” and active extension to 90 degrees. Id. at 209. A physician’s assistant (“PA”)
did not render a specific assessment, prescribed a tapering dose of prednisone, ordered
an x-ray (which was unremarkable), and referred Petitioner for an orthopedic consult. Id.
at 208, 211.
At the October 30, 2019 orthopedics initial evaluation, Petitioner again reported an
injury from “having a flu shot in the right shoulder.” Ex. 11 at 204. Her pain ranged from
3-8/10, mostly with shoulder abduction and forward flexion, and “occasionally” kept her
up at night. Id. The pain was “tremendously” helped by prednisone, however. Id. An exam
confirmed decreased ROM (specifically a 25-degree deficit in forward flexion, and 35-
degree deficit in abduction) and positive Neer’s and Hawkins tests. Id. at 205. The
orthopedist assessed “right shoulder pain, likely rotator cuff inflammation; could be related
to a local reaction to her vaccine injection.” Id. Petitioner was told to finish out the course
of steroids and try performing home exercises. Id.
At a November 30, 2019 follow-up, the orthopedist recorded that Petitioner had
completed her steroid course and her right shoulder pain had returned to “the normal
6/10.” Ex. 11 at 196. She could not take oral NSAIDs due to reflux. Id. Another exam was
largely normal with “full range of motion without pain actively,” but slightly decreased
strength (4+/5 external rotation), a 30-degree deficit in internal rotation compared to the
6 CVS supplied two copies of the flu vaccine consent and administration record, with differing redactions
made to each. When viewed together, the two copies are fully legible, however. At a December 6, 2023
initial status conference, Petitioner stated that she did not apply the redactions, CVS likely did. ECF No. 24.
7 Neither party cited this record. See Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 2; Brief at 1; Response at 2.
3

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 12
left side, and positive Hawkins and Neer’s signs. Id. The orthopedist prescribed Celebrex
and ordered an MRI and formal physical therapy (“PT”).
The December 6, 2019 MRI results suggested the presence of supraspinatus and
infraspinatus tendinopathy with edema and fluid, but no tearing, and mild
acromioclavicular joint arthritis. Ex. 2 at 16. Five days later, the orthopedist recorded that
Petitioner’s pain “had not improved at all,” but she deferred a steroid injection because
she was “leery” and “not a big fan of needles.” Ex. 11 at 193-94. She was urged to start
PT to “not get stiff”; the injury would likely “get better in time but… take many months to
resolve.” Id. at 194.
At the December 17, 2019 PT initial evaluation, Petitioner’s reported onset was
October 10, 2019, when she “had her flu shot in the right arm… up too high in the arm.”
Ex. 3 at 2. Her pain ranged from 1-9/10, increasing with movement. Id. at 3. An exam
found decreased active and passive ROM, normal strength except for 4+/5 on external
rotation, tenderness on palpation, and positive Neer’s and Hawkins tests. Id. The therapist
planned formal and home therapies to treat subacromial bursitis. Ex. 3 at 4; see also id.
at 5-10 (three subsequent PT sessions).
At a January 8, 2020 orthopedics follow-up, Petitioner reported “feeling worse”
despite starting PT. Ex. 11 at 186. The orthopedist felt that she had recently developed
adhesive capsulitis, in addition to the previously-visualized rotator cuff tenosynovitis. Id.
at 187. Petitioner consented to receiving a subacromial steroid injection that day. Id.; see
also Ex. 3 at 11-23 (PT sessions 5-10, reflecting temporary pain relief).
On February 3, 2020, an orthopedics physician’s assistant (“PA”) recorded that
Petitioner felt “20% better”; her pain currently rated 2/10, but was exacerbated with certain
movements and directions. Ex. 11 at 183. The PA told Petitioner to continue PT with ROM
and strengthening exercises for her diagnosed adhesive capsulitis, and to follow up in
eight weeks for a repeat steroid injection. Id.
Petitioner attended two more PT sessions on February 5 and 10, 2020. Ex. 3 at
24-26. At the 12th and final session (labeled a re-evaluation), Petitioner reported pain
ranging from 1-4/10, associated with reaching her arm up, out, and back. Id. She was
frustrated with her lack of progress – stating: “I will keep doing exercises, but I want to
see over the next few weeks if I can handle the exercises myself. They [the orthopedics
providers] said this could take 9 months, and I can’t keep coming to PT that long.” Id. at
25. She was using heat to manage the pain, which was “tolerable” and ranging from 1-
4/10. Id. The therapist recorded ongoing pain, ROM deficits, and weakness, but approved
Petitioner’s release to an independent home exercise program. Id.
4

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 12
A May 27, 2020 orthopedics follow up record provides: “Petitioner did quite a bit of
[PT], which has been beneficial, but she has basically been in a holding pattern doing
home exercises for the past few months and has not noticed any significant
improvements… At this point she denies really having any significant pain. It is just the
lack of motion and she feels weakness. She has increased pain if she lays on the
shoulder, and she cannot tolerate any sort of repetitive activity like vacuuming, sweeping
etc.” Ex. 11 at 179. An exam found decreased internal rotation (Petitioner could not reach
behind her back), 4+/5 strength and pain on abduction, and negative impingement testing.
Id. She was sent to a shoulder specialist to help guide further treatment. Id. at 180.
The shoulder specialist’s record from June 2, 2020, repeats the same history of a
right-sided vaccination and resulting injury. Ex. 11 at 171. His exam found 4+/5 strength
at the supraspinatus and infraspinatus, positive impingement signs, and decreased
passive forward flexion. Id. at 171-72. After reviewing the imaging, the shoulder specialist
assessed “subacromial bursitis/ impingement status post-flu shot,” which would “most
likely resolve over time”. Id. at 172. Petitioner deferred an intra-articular steroid injection
on that date, instead agreeing to consider that option and follow up if she had ongoing
symptoms. Id.
In a July 14, 2020 letter “to whom it may concern”, the original orthopedist
endorsed that Petitioner had developed “inflammation within the shoulder from vaccine
placement of the shoulder joint” with no apparent alternative explanation. Ex. 4 at 2. The
orthopedist recounted Petitioner’s initial treatment course and “very slow progress”, but
not her current prognosis. Id. Indeed in a September 23, 2020 appointment record, the
orthopedist reviewed that her right shoulder injury from the flu vaccine “eventually… did
resolve,” upon evaluating a new complaint regarding her left shoulder. Ex. 11 at 143. The
remaining medical records are focused on unrelated complaints including low back pain
assessed as lumbar radiculopathy. Ex. 11 at 1-178.
B. Additional Evidence
In an October 2021 affidavit, Petitioner describes the onset of right shoulder pain
on the date of vaccination, without specifically addressing situs. Ex. 8. In a December
2024 supplemental affidavit, Petitioner avers that the original CVS record incorrectly
suggests a left-sided administration for the flu vaccine. Ex. 12 at ¶ 2. Petitioner states that
after discovering this “discrepancy,” in August 2023 she returned to CVS and spoke with
the administering pharmacist, who agreed to make a handwritten notation on a copy of
the record. Id. at ¶ 8; see also Ex. 10 (reading “Right Deltoid. LC 8/22/23”). Finally, I have
reviewed the signed statements of Petitioner’s husband and sister, who recount observing
5

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 6 of 12
her right shoulder with a bandage, redness, and swelling, within one day after the at-issue
vaccination. Exs. 13-14.8
III. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,9 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).
8 Petitioner completed two affidavits with notarization (Exs. 8, 12). In contrast, while her husband and
sister’s statements are labeled as affidavits, they are not notarized – or signed under penalty of perjury.
See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 (providing that such a statement may be given like force and effect as an affidavit).
9 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).
6

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 7 of 12
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 flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(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
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).
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
7

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 8 of 12
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.
B. Finding of Fact - Situs
The only disputed issue is the site of vaccine administration. Respondent contends
that there is not preponderant evidence in Petitioner’s favor, because the most
contemporaneous record indicates the left deltoid. Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 4-5;
Response at 6-7. Respondent argues that Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1) prevents me from
finding in Petitioner’s favor based on her claims alone. Id.
My experience resolving SIRVA cases has taught me that it is not unusual for
information regarding the vaccine administration site to be incorrect – especially
information contained in computerized records, which may feature a ‘dropdown’ menu
which may not be updated each time a separate vaccine is administered.10 Thus, although
such records are unquestionably the first-generated documents bearing on issues
pertaining to situs, they are not per se reliable simply because they come first – and in
fact the nature of their creation provides some basis for not accepting them at face
value.11 This case involves just such computerized, pre-printed information.12
In contrast to CVS’s records, all other medical records in the case support
Petitioner’s situs contentions. It is particularly notable that these medical records begin
just 13 days post-vaccination. Several records explicitly describe a right-sided vaccine
administration, in the context of evaluation and treatment of Petitioner’s right shoulder
injury. See, e.g., Ex. 11 at 212; 208, 204 (organized chronologically); Ex. 3 at 2. The
10 See, e.g., Mezzacapo v. Sec’y of Health Servs., No. 18-1977, 2021 WL 1940435, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021); Desai v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No 14-0811V, 2020 WL 4919777, at *14
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL
1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-
0990V, 2018 WL 6718629, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9, 2018).
11 In contrast, information which requires specific action on the part of the vaccine administrator (often at
the very time of administration), such as a handwritten notation on a printed form, generally warrants more
significant weight See, e.g., Schmidt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1530V, 2021 WL 5226494,
at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 7, 2021); Marion v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0495V, 2020 WL
7054414 at *8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 27, 2020).
12 I have considered that alongside the preprinted notation of “Left Deltoid,” both Petitioner and the
administering pharmacist signed the record – but Petitioner has attested that she only realized the record
was incorrect upon review several years later, see Ex. 12, and Respondent has not argued this point.
Moreover, the weight of the evidence supports Petitioner’s allegation of a right-sided vaccination.
8

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 9 of 12
Federal Circuit has counseled that patient histories “in general, warrant consideration as
trustworthy evidence… [as they] contain information supplied to… health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
I rely very little - if at all – on Petitioner and the pharmacist’s annotation of the
vaccine record nearly four years after the fact (Ex. 10) or moreover, on the unsworn
statements from Petitioner’s husband and sister (Exs. 13-14). Instead, the medical record
evidence alone preponderates in favor of a right-sided vaccine administration.
C. Factual Findings on Remaining SIRVA QAI Criteria and Statutory
Requirements
Petitioner’s success in meeting the remaining QAI requirements is not disputed,13
and I also find that they have been preponderantly satisfied. The record does not suggest
that Petitioner had a history of shoulder pain or any other condition that would explain her
post-vaccination symptoms. She exhibited reduced ROM, and her pain and ROM
limitations were limited to the vaccinated shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 11 at 171-72, 179-80.
The statutory requirements applicable to all claims are also preponderantly
established. Petitioner received a covered vaccine in the United States. Ex. 9. She
experienced residual effects of the injury for more than six months. See, e.g., Ex. 11 at
171-72, 179-80. And she states that she has never received an award or settlement of a
civil action for the injury, nor has she filed a civil action. Ex. 8 at ¶ 6. Thus, Petitioner is
entitled to compensation.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
A. Authority
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining SIRVA damages, taking into account prior compensation
determinations within SPU. I fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in
Sections I and II of Matthews v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1396V, 2025 WL
2606607 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 13, 2025).
In sum, compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or
actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related
13 Respondent does not raise any arguments concerning the remaining SIRVA Table QAI requirements or
statutory requirements. See generally Amended Rule 4(c) Report; Response.
9

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 10 of 12
injury, an award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). 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). 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.14
B. Analysis
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 awareness
of the injury. Therefore, I analyze principally the injury’s severity and duration.
When performing the analysis in this case, I review the record as a whole, including
the medical records, declarations, affidavits, and all other filed evidence, plus the parties’
briefs and other pleadings. 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 evidence supports that Petitioner’s right SIRVA was
somewhat mild overall and also limited in duration. As detailed further above, Petitioner
reported the injury promptly – first during an unrelated appointment just thirteen days
post-vaccination, which was followed by a primary care evaluation specifically of the
shoulder five days later. She received consistent but fairly conservative treatment
(specifically primary care and orthopedic evaluations, imaging, one course of oral
steroids, prescription Celebrex, one steroid injection, 12 formal PT sessions, and home
exercises). That treatment course ended just short of eight months post-vaccination, and
her orthopedist expressly stated that the right shoulder injury had “resolve[d]” 11.5 months
post-vaccination, Ex. 11 at 143.
I recognize that Petitioner reported pain of up to 8-9/10 in the first few months, and
that she could not take over-the-counter pain relief medications due to reflux concerns.
Ex. 11 at 204; Ex. 3 at 3. But she also characterized the pain as fluctuating and associated
with certain movements; she received temporary relief from a steroid injection; and in
later months her pain was no longer “significant” – dropping down to the lower end of a
ten-point scale. See, e.g., Ex. 11 at 183, 179; Ex. 3 at 25. It also seems that Petitioner
14 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (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)).
10

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 11 of 12
continued to physically assist nursing home patients throughout her injury, see e.g., Ex.
3 at 3. And she has not established any formal accommodations or leave of absence from
that employment.
Petitioner contends that her past pain and suffering warrants an award of $90,000.
Brief at 9. She agrees that she should receive less than other individuals who underwent
surgical intervention for their SIRVAs, such as in Yodowitz. Id.15
But Petitioner has not adequately explained why her case is “in line with” – let
alone more severe – than Russano (awarding $80,000.00), which in this Petitioner’s
summarization involved “23 physical therapy appointments, x-rays, an MRI, and one
injection.” Brief at 9-10.16 Indeed, Respondent correctly observes that Ms. Clark attended
half the number of PT sessions, and that her SIRVA did not cause compensatory injuries
akin to the Russano petitioner’s history of breast cancer which affected use of the injured
arm and chondrodermatitis nodularis necessitating multiple injections to the right ear.
Response at 11; Russano, 2020 WL 3639804, at *3-4.
Petitioner also states that in Sherbine, $70,000.00 was awarded to a petitioner who
“only had 4 physical therapy sessions, one x-ray, one injection, and one orthopedic
appointment.” Brief at 9.17 Petitioner argues that her additional treatment (e.g., additional
orthopedic follow-up appointments and more PT sessions) justifies a higher award. Id. I
also note that the Sherbine petitioner’s active treatment course was roughly eight months
- about the same duration as in this case. 2020 WL 1933136 at *10-11. But Respondent
notes that the Sherbine petitioner’s limited PT course was explained by financial
limitations, and her high pain levels continued throughout the treatment course –
compared to Ms. Clark here, whose pain seemed to decrease over time. See Response
at 11-12; Sherbine, 2020 WL 1933136 at *10-11. Thus, Petitioner has not established
pain and suffering more severe than that in Sherbine.
At the same time, Respondent’s valuation of $52,500.00 is too low. See Response
at 12-13. I recognize that Respondent’s only cited case, Norton,18 featured a facially
15 Citing Yodowitz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-370V, 2024 WL 4284926 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 23, 2024) (awarding $100,000.00 for past pain and suffering);
16 Russano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-392V, 2020 WL 3639804 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
4, 2020) ($80,000.00).
17 Sherbine v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-413V, 2020 WL 1933136 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
27, 2020) ($70,000.00).
18 Citing Norton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1432V, 2021 WL 4805231 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Sept. 14, 2021) ($55,000.00).
11

Case 1:22-vv-01479-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/20/25 Page 12 of 12
similar treatment duration and course, but a greater number of PT sessions (24,
compared to 12 for Ms. Clark). But the Norton petitioner obtained “significant relief” from
her steroid injection three months post-vaccination, followed by consistent denials of pain
and findings of normal ROM, and a conclusion that she had met all PT goals. 2021 WL
4805231. In contrast, Ms. Clark’s injury decreased somewhat over time, but was
nonetheless more resistant to the steroid injection and PT, and was not assessed as
“resolve[d] until nearly the one-year mark (despite the earlier discontinuation of formal
treatment).
Based on consideration of the record evidence, the above comparisons, and my
overall experience with SIRVAs, I find that a fair and appropriate award for past pain and
suffering in this case is $60,000.00.
Conclusion
As explained above, I conclude that Petitioner has established a right-sided
vaccination and all other entitlement requirements for a Table SIRVA. Thus,
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
I also award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $60,000.00 (for past pain and
suffering19) to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s
counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
19 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)).
20 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