VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01627
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01627
Petitioner: Holly LaPointe
Filed: 2022-11-01
Decided: 2026-01-09
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-21
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 79182.37

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 1, 2022, Holly LaPointe filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 21, 2020 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.

Respondent contested whether her pain began within 48 hours, pointing to a first treatment record on November 25, 2020 and several intervening appointments for vertigo and knee-surgery issues. Ms. LaPointe argued that her reports of left arm pain, her explanations for delayed treatment, and supporting declarations established timely onset. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the Table SIRVA criteria satisfied.

Damages were also disputed. Ms. LaPointe sought $85,000.00 for pain and suffering, citing a multi-year course, pain up to 8 out of 10, two MRIs, two steroid injections, diclofenac, and occupational therapy. Respondent proposed $55,000.00, emphasizing treatment gaps, generally full range of motion early on, and other possible pain sources. The Chief Special Master awarded $75,000.00 for pain and suffering and $4,182.37 in unreimbursed expenses, for a total of $79,182.37 on January 9, 2026.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine October 21, 2020 causing Table SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated; onset found within 48 hours. COMPENSATED after contested entitlement/damages. Respondent disputed onset and severity; evidence included vertigo/knee-surgery appointment context, pain up to 8/10, two MRIs, two steroid injections, diclofenac, OT, treatment gaps, and possible unrelated pain sources. Award $75,000 pain/suffering + $4,182.37 expenses = $79,182.37. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition November 1, 2022; decision January 9, 2026.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-01627-0
Date issued/filed: 2026-02-10
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/09/2026) regarding 45 DECISION of Special Master,, Ruling on Entitlement, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 10
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1627V
HOLLY LAPOINTE,
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: January 9, 2026
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Catherine Wallace Costigan, Mct Law, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 1, 2022, Holly LaPointe filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, or in the alternative
caused-in-fact injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 21, 2020.
Petition at 1, ¶ 1, 19-20, 22.
For the reasons described below, and after briefing by the parties, I find that
Petitioner is entitled compensation, and I award damages in the amount of $79,182.37,
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 10
representing $75,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $4,182.37 for past
unreimbursed expenses.
I. 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,3 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
3 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).
2

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 10
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 Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“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) (2017).
B. Factual Finding Regarding QAI Criteria for Table SIRVA
The only Table requirement for SIRVA that Respondent contests is the second
criterion - whether Petitioner experienced pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination. Rule
4(c) Report, filed Sept. 20, 2024, at 10-11; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)XIV(B) & (c)(10)(ii)
(requiring first symptom and pain onset specifically within 48 hours of vaccination). To
support his position, Respondent emphasizes Petitioner’s account of left arm pain for one
3

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 10
month when first seeking treatment from her primary care provider on November 25, 2020
– which he strictly interprets to mean a pain onset six-days post-vaccination, Petitioner’s
statement that “she was ‘worried’ that the vaccine could have caused her pain” – which
he maintains showed a lack of “a more concrete sense of the causal relationship,” and
Petitioner’s failure to report left shoulder symptoms during five intervening appointments
within three weeks of vaccination. Id. at 10. Even buttressed by the affidavit evidence
Petitioner provided, Respondent insists “the medical records fail to establish that
[P]etitioner developed shoulder pain within 48 hours.” Id. at 11.
Equating her circumstances with those found in Williams,4 Petitioner argues that
her repeated reports of left arm pain following vaccination, even if they sometimes involve
vague descriptions, establish the required pain onset within 48 hours of vaccination.
Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Regarding Entitlement and Damages (“Brief”), filed Oct. 9, 2024, at 15-17, ECF No. 38.
She discounts her failure to mention any left arm pain at multiple appointments during the
three weeks post-vaccination, stressing that these visits were related to treatment of
benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (“BPPV”)5 - a “disorienting and frightening” condition
(id. at 18), and her upcoming knee surgery;6 and arguing that a treatment delay of less
than a month is not unreasonable. Brief at 17-19. Additionally, Petitioner claims that she
mentioned her symptoms at the PCP visit on November 9, 2020, and that a colleague’s
declaration supports this assertion. Id. at 17 (citing Exs. 17, 19).7 Regarding
Respondent’s strict interpretation of her reported pain onset when first seeking treatment,
Petitioner insists that Respondent ignores other entries within the same record which,
taken in their entirety, supports, rather than undercuts a more immediate pain onset. Id.
at 14.
4 Williams v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1046V, 2020 WL 3579763 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr.
1, 2020).
5 Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo involves “recurrent brief periods of positional vertigo and nystagmus
occurring when the head is placed in certain positions such as with one ear down.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED
MEDICAL DICTIONARY (“DORLAND’S”) at 1052 (32th ed. 2012).
6 Petitioner had previously undergone right knee surgery in 2017, and began to experience similar
symptoms again in 2019. Ex. 2 at 24-37 (2017 treatment and surgery), 22 (showing similar symptoms in
May 2019). By late October 2020, it was determined that she should undergo arthroscopic surgery (id. at
13-14), which was performed on December 4, 2020 (id. at 10-12).
7 Both declarations, from herself and her colleague, were signed under penalty of perjury as required
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746. Ex. 17, filed Nov. 1, 2022, at 1, ECF No. 5; Ex. 19, filed Feb. 2, 2023, at
3, ECF No. 9. Additionally, when providing her declaration, Petitioner refiled her colleague’s declaration,
along with additional documentation related to its certification. See Ex. 20, ECF No. 9.
4

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 10
In their responsive briefing, the parties reiterate the arguments set forth in their
initial filings. Respondent’s Brief in Response to Brief (“Opp.”), filed Dec. 4, 2024, ECF
No. 41; Petitioner’s Reply to Opp. (“Reply”), filed Dec. 5, 2024, ECF No. 42.
A review of the record in this case reveals the preponderant evidence needed to
establish the required pain onset. Petitioner’s failure to mention any symptoms during the
initial three weeks post-vaccination is reasonable, especially since she was pursuing
treatment for other serious, well-established conditions.8 As I have stated on numerous
occasions, individuals suffering from vaccine-related symptoms will often delay seeking
treatment for at least a few weeks, believing that their symptoms will resolve on their own.
Matthews v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1396V, 2024 WL 3026843, at *6 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 15, 2024).
Even if I determined there was not sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s
assertion - that she mentioned her symptoms on November 9, 2020, it is clear that she
complained of left arm pain on November 25, 2020, only one-month post-vaccination and
just prior to her December 4, 2020 knee surgery. Ex. 5 at 48. And her failures to
definitively state that her pain was present for 36 days, or to unequivocally link its origin
to the flu vaccine, are not fatal. In fact, it would be illogical to expect Petitioner to use such
precise language, not usually seen in medical records, or to preempt her PCP by reaching
a conclusion as to her symptoms etiology without hearing the PCP’s assessment.
Furthermore, Petitioner consistently described a concurrent pain onset and linked
her symptoms to her flu vaccine at appointments thereafter. Ex. 5 at 11, 13, 47-50; Ex.
10 at 115. Thus, I find there is preponderant evidence to show Petitioner’s pain began
within 48 hours of vaccination.
Respondent has raised no other entitlement objection, and the record contains
sufficient evidence showing Petitioner has satisfied the other QAI criteria, and. See 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i), (iii)-(iv). There is no evidence of prior left shoulder symptoms or
a current condition that constitutes a viable alternative cause. See, generally, Exs. 2, 5
(PCP and orthopedic records). Additionally, Petitioner’s pain and decreased range of
motion were limited to her left shoulder. Ex. 14 at 13. Thus, all elements of a Table SIRVA
claim have been preponderantly established.
8 Seven days post-vaccination, Petitioner attended an orthopedic appointment for her right knee pain at
which time it was determined that she should undergo arthroscopic surgery. Ex. 2 at 13-14. She underwent
a CT on November 5, 2020, and was seen by her PCP for pre-surgery clearance on November 9, 2020.
Ex. 8 at 24 (CT results); Ex. 5 at 45 (in chronologic order). Petition also attended three physical therapy
sessions for her BPPV in October and November 2020. Ex. 4 at 198-215.
5

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 10
C. Other Requirements for Entitlement
Because Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table SIRVA, she need not
prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However, she must satisfy the other requirements
of Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination received, the duration and severity of her injury,
and the lack of other award or settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D). Respondent
does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the
overall record contains preponderant evidence which fulfills these additional
requirements.
II. Compensation to be Awarded
A. Legal Standards for Pain and Suffering Awards
In another recent decision, I discussed at length the legal standard to be
considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation 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, at *1-3 (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
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.9
B. Parties Arguments
The parties agree Petitioner should be awarded $4,182.37 for past unreimbursed
expenses, comprised of $3,533.74 for out-of-pocket costs and $648.63 in mileage costs
calculated using the IRS business rate. Brief at 22; Opp. at 16; Reply at 4. Thus, the only
area of disagreement is the amount of compensation which should be awarded for
Petitioner’s pain and suffering.
9 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)).
6

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 7 of 10
Emphasizing the more than three-year duration of her SIRVA, as well as the short
amount of time before seeking medical attention which she insists was only 19 days,10
Petitioner maintains that she should be awarded $85,000.00 for past pain and suffering.
Brief at 22. She notes that her pain severity was five out of ten at her initial occupational
therapy (“OT”) session, and “could get as bad as 8/10.” Id. at 23. And she underwent two
MRIs, received two steroid injections, and attended 22 OT sessions. Id. at 22-23.
Petitioner favorably compares the facts and circumstances in her case to those
experienced by the petitioners in Mantagas, Gentile, and Dhanoa11 - decisions featuring
awards ranging from $75,000.00 to $85,000.00, with the Dhanoa petitioner also receiving
a small future pain and suffering award. Brief at 27-28.
Although he cites similar injury duration and treatment – adding that “Petitioner
also received prescriptions for diclofenac[12],” Respondent characterizes Petitioner’s
SIRVA as “not severe.” Opp. at 15. Instead, he proposes a past pain and suffering award
of $55,000.00. Respondent distinguishes Petitioner’s facts and circumstances from those
in the cases she cited but agrees that it “is most similar to Mantagas.” Id. “However, rather
than arguing that a $10,000.00 enhancement in the award is appropriate, [R]espondent
argues that a downgrade of $20,000.00 is appropriate” because Petitioner has not
established that the new pathology seen on her second MRI (performed in February
2021) was vaccine related. Id. at 15-16 (citing Ex. 29 at 7-8 (MRI results)).
In her reply, Petitioner stresses that Respondent relies upon the same overall
duration and needed treatment, but insists these factors support the higher amount she
seeks. Reply at 3.
C. Appropriate Compensation for 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. In determining appropriate compensation for pain and suffering, I have
10 Although she insists that she sought medical care at her November 9, 2020 PCP visit, Petitioner argues
that even if I reject her assertion, the record unequivocally shows she sought treatment by November 25,
2020, only 35 days post-vaccination. Brief at 22.
11 Mantagas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1720V, 2023 WL 4573855 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
14, 2023) (awarding $75,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Gentile v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
16-0980V, 2020 WL 3618909 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2020) (awarding $85,000.00 for past pain and
suffering); Dhana v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 1, 2018) (awarding $85,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $10,000.00 reduced to net present
value for future pain and suffering).
12 Diclofenac is “a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug derived from phenylacetic acid. DORLAND’S at 513.
7

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 8 of 10
carefully reviewed and taken into account the complete record in this case, including, but
not limited to: Petitioner’s medical records, filings, and all assertions made by the parties
in written documents. I have also considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both
SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases, and relied upon my experience adjudicating these
cases. However, my determination is ultimately based upon the specific circumstances
of this case.
The medical records show that Petitioner suffered an initially mild to moderate
SIRVA, involving pain at a level of five to eight with use,13 some intermittent tingling,14 but
full range of motion (“ROM”).15 Although she declined two offers of Gabapentin during
December 2020, it is important to recognize that she was recovering from knee surgery
during this time. Thus, Petitioner may have been leery of adding yet another medication
with side effects such as tiredness and dizziness.16 And she reported no relief from seven
OT sessions attended during January 2021. Ex. 5 at 13.
When Petitioner returned for a follow-up appointment in February 2021, her PCP
ordered an MRI which revealed bursal surface fraying, moderate glenohumeral joint
arthritis, and mild labral degenerative changes. Ex. 5 at 13 (PCP visit), 11 (February 13th
MRI). At her next appointment, with an orthopedist in May 2021, she described
“increasing discomfort,” but exhibited no tenderness upon palpitation and “full, painless
range of motion in all planes.” Ex. 9 at 3. The orthopedist simply instructed her to “continue
with a home-guided exercise program.” Id. During this time, Petitioner also began
collecting the medical records needed to initiate her vaccine claim. See., e.g., Ex. 2 at 1
(medical records request dated April 16, 2021).
Petitioner did not return for treatment until eleven months later, on April 7, 2022.
At that orthopedic visit, she complained of increasing pain, discomfort, and limitations in
ROM. Ex. 14 at 13. After reviewing the results of the MRI performed in February 2021,
the orthopedist administered a steroid injection, ordered a refill of diclofenac and
additional OT, and instructed Petitioner to return in four to six weeks. Id.
13 Petitioner provided this description in one of the few entries showing Petitioner’s pain level, her initial OT
evaluation. Ex. 10 at 115. There is a glaring lack of entries in the medical records in this case providing
information related to the severity of Petitioner’s pain.
14 In the medical records from Petitioner’s initial treatment, there are several entries noting intermittent
tingling, as well as pain. E.g., Ex. 5 at 48.
15 Petitioner’s ROM was a routinely assessed as full during the initial seven months of her SIRVA. Ex. 5 at
48; Ex. 9 at 3. She was not described as experiencing limited ROM until early April 2022, more than 18
months post-vaccination. Ex. 14 at 13.
16 See https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/21561-gabapentin (last visited Jan. 7, 2026).
8

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 9 of 10
At her initial OT session on April 13, 2022, Petitioner reported current pain of three
increasing to five at worst. Ex. 23 at 7. By her eighth and second to last OT session on
May 11, 2022, her pain had reduced to a range of no pain to four out of ten. Id. at 82.
During this time, she also returned to her orthopedist for lower back pain.17 At her May
19, 2022 visit related to left shoulder symptoms, the orthopedist again instructed her to
continue her home exercise program.
Petitioner did not return for further treatment until a year later, on May 18, 2023,
when she complained of different symptoms, involving her trapezius area and movement
of her spine.18 And she reported a longer period of pain relief (one year) than usually
obtained from the treatment she received (specifically the steroid injection) at her next
appointment in September 2023. Ex. 22 at 6. Furthermore, as noted by Respondent, a
second MRI performed on January 3, 2024, revealed new findings, likely unrelated to her
flu vaccine.19
Thus, the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish duration beyond May 2022,
19 months post-vaccination. Even this time consists of initial treatment for only seven
months, followed by one month of orthopedic treatment and OT in 2022, after an eleven-
month gap. And there are multiple other sources of at least some of Petitioner’s pain, for
example, her strenuous exercise (lifting) – mentioned as a possible source of her
symptoms at her initial appointment, and the back pain she experienced in 2022. At a
minimum, these factors should be considered when determining Petitioner’s past pain
and suffering award.
I agree that Mantagas offers the most helpful guidance in this case. And I also find
Niemi20 – in which $75,000.00 was also awarded, to be instructive. Both petitioners
suffered SIRVAs with similar severity and duration. Mantagas, 2023 WL 4573855, at *4-
17 Observing “notable disk degeneration” at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels on x-rays taken the same day as
this orthopedic visit, on April 28, 2022, the orthopedist proposed scheduling a “sacroiliac joint injection,” to
which Petitioner agreed. Ex. 14 at 11. The planned injection was administered on May 9, 2022 (id. at 7),
and Petitioner reported good, albeit temporary (a few days only), relief at her next appointment on May 31,
2022 (id. at 4-5).
18 When she returned to her orthopedist on May 18, 2023, Petitioner described “increasing discomfort to
her trapezius and decreased range of motion of the cervical spine.” Ex. 22 at 3.
19 This second MRI revealed the same bursal surface fraying – noted to be unchanged, but also m]ild
acromioclavicular degenerative change with minimal capsular edema . . . [and] [m]ild subacromial
subdeltoid bursitis,” both noted to be “new when compared to the prior examination.” Ex. 24 at 2-3. It also
showed a slight progression of the previously seen “[m]ild to moderate glenohumeral osteoarthritis.” Id. at
3.
20 Niemi v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1535V, 2022 WL 3135258 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 2,
2022).
9

Case 1:22-vv-01627-UNJ Document 47 Filed 02/10/26 Page 10 of 10
7; Niemi, 2022 WL 3135258, at *5-6. And the Mantagas petitioner also had a significant
gap in treatment. Mantagas, 2023 WL 4573855, at *4-5. Thus, I find that Petitioner should
receive a similar past pain and suffering award of $75,000.00.
Conclusion
For all the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the entire
record, I find that Petitioner’s left shoulder injury meets the definition for a Table
SIRVA. Thus, causation is presumed, and Petitioner is entitled to compensation in
this case. Furthermore, I find that $75,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.21 I also find that
Petitioner is entitled to $4,182.37 in actual unreimbursable expenses.
I therefore award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $79,182.37, 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) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the 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
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)).
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.
10