VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00122
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00122
Petitioner: Crystal Richardson
Filed: 2023-01-27
Decided: 2025-04-04
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-21
Condition: left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 129489

AI-assisted case summary:
Crystal Richardson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 27, 2023, alleging that she suffered a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 21, 2020. Ms. Richardson was 34 years old at the time of vaccination. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Ms. Richardson's alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that she satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on December 11, 2023, finding Ms. Richardson entitled to compensation. The parties were unable to agree on a damages figure, leading to a "Motions Day" proceeding on February 28, 2025. The public decision, issued by Chief Special Master Corcoran on April 4, 2025, awarded Ms. Richardson a lump sum of $129,489.53. This amount included $1,989.53 for past unreimbursable expenses, which the parties stipulated to, and $127,500.00 for past pain and suffering. The decision noted that Ms. Richardson, a mother of two, sought medical attention within 12 days of vaccination for her left shoulder pain. Her treatment included physical therapy, a steroid injection, and ultimately arthroscopic surgery on February 2, 2021, for subacromial decompression, debridement, and capsular release. Following surgery and further physical therapy, her shoulder substantially recovered by August 2021, although she experienced occasional soreness and discomfort. The Special Master considered prior case law, including Wilson, Rafferty, and Meyers, when determining the award for pain and suffering, noting similarities and differences in treatment duration, severity, and impact on personal life, particularly Ms. Richardson's caregiving obligations for her young children. The award was paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner's counsel's IOLTA account. Heather V. Menezes of Shaheen & Gordon P.A. represented the petitioner, and Adam Nemeth Muffett of the U.S. Department of Justice represented the respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Crystal Richardson, age 34, received an influenza vaccine on October 21, 2020, and subsequently developed a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Respondent conceded that the injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that Petitioner met the legal prerequisites for compensation. The case proceeded to a damages determination. Petitioner sought $127,500.00 for past pain and suffering, citing prior cases like Wilson, Rafferty, and Nute. Respondent argued this amount was excessive, referencing cases like Meyers. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $127,500.00 for past pain and suffering, considering the severity and duration of the injury, the need for arthroscopic surgery (subacromial decompression, debridement, and capsular release), and the impact on Petitioner's ability to care for her two young children. The total award was $129,489.53, including $1,989.53 in stipulated past unreimbursable expenses. The decision was issued on April 4, 2025. Petitioner was represented by Heather V. Menezes (Shaheen & Gordon P.A.) and Respondent by Adam Nemeth Muffett (U.S. Department of Justice).

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00122-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-01-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/11/2023) regarding 20 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 22 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0122V
CRYSTAL RICHARDSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: December 11, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Heather V. Menezes, Shaheen & Gordon P.A., Manchester, NH, for Petitioner.
Adam Nemeth Muffett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 27, 2023, Crystal Richardson 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-sided shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
October 21, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On December 11, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent
with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 6 – 7 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§
1 Because this unpublished 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 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 22 Filed 01/11/24 Page 2 of 2
100.3(a), (c)(10)). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00122-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-04
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/03/2025) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/04/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-0122V
CRYSTAL RICHARDSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: March 3, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Heather V. Menezes, Shaheen & Gordon P.A., Manchester, NH, for Petitioner.
Adam Nemeth Muffett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 27, 2023, Crystal Richardson 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-sided shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on
October 21, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
(“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters, and although entitlement was conceded in
Petitioner’s favor, the parties could not agree to a damages figure, and their dispute was
therefore submitted to resolution at a “Motions Day” proceeding on February 28, 2025.
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 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/04/25 Page 2 of 7
For the following reasons, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation
in the form of a lump sum payment of $129,489.53 (representing $127,500.00 for
past pain and suffering, plus $1,989.53 for past unreimbursable expenses).
I. Procedural History
The case was assigned to SPU in May 2023. ECF No. 8. Respondent conceded
entitlement of Petitioner’s left SIRVA in a Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 19), and I accordingly
issued a corresponding Ruling (ECF No. 20) in December 2023. The parties quickly
reported an impasse in their respective valuations of the case, see Status Report (ECF
No. 21), and briefed the subject. Damages Brief filed Feb. 1, 2024 (ECF No. 23);
Response filed Mar. 18, 2024 (ECF No. 24); Reply filed Mar. 22, 2024 (ECF No. 25).
Afterwards, Petitioner then filed a short affidavit about her childcare arrangement (in
response to argument in Respondent’s Response). Ex. 10 (ECF No. 29). The parties also
confirmed their joint stipulation of the reimbursement of $1,989.53 for past
unreimbursable expenses. Accordingly, they only disputed the appropriate award for past
pain and suffering. Joint Status Report filed Jan. 22, 2025 (ECF No. 31).
At the end of the February 28, 2025 expedited hearing, I issued an oral ruling from
the bench on damages in this case. That ruling is set forth fully in the transcript from the
hearing, which is yet to be filed with the case’s docket. The transcript from the hearing is,
however, fully incorporated into this Decision.
II. 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
Section II of Yodowitz v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-370V, 2024 WL 4284926,
at *2 – 3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 23, 2024).
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
2

Case 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/04/25 Page 3 of 7
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering.3
III. 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 the analysis in this case, I review the record as a whole to include
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.
The evidence establishes that Petitioner (a 34-year-old mother of two) received
the flu vaccine in her non-dominant left arm on October 21, 2020. Ex. 5 at 26, 30. She
was employed full-time as an auditor at a credit union, which appears to be a desk-based
job. Ex. 6 at 18. She was healthy, with no history of shoulder pain or dysfunction. Rule
4(c) Report at 2.
After initially trying to manage the pain with over-the-counter medication, Petitioner
promptly sought formal medical attention. Just 12 days post-vaccination, on November 2,
2020, she saw her primary care provider (“PCP”) (who obtained an X-ray, which was
unremarkable), and also established care with an orthopedic surgeon. Ex. 5 at 13 – 14;
Ex. 6 at 15.4 After four physical therapy (“PT”) sessions (see Ex. 6 at 85 – 97), on
November 16, 2021), the orthopedist opined that Petitioner’s “left shoulder was not getting
better on its own,” and he administered a steroid injection. Ex. 6 at 13 – 14.
3 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)).
4 The orthopedic records suggest significant and persistent limitations in range of motion (“ROM”)
particularly on external rotation (noted to be 35 degrees at the initial evaluation, see Ex. 6 at 15, and only
reaching 45 degrees at the final post-surgical appt. in August 2021, Ex. 7 at 8. Respondent argues, perhaps
correctly, that the concurrent physical therapy records more accurately document that Petitioner’s ROM
improved over time especially after her surgery.
3

Case 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/04/25 Page 4 of 7
One month later, on December 18, 2021, Petitioner reported that the steroid
injection had “definitely helped” but was “starting to wear off.” Ex. 6 at 11. Concerned that
Petitioner’s condition was “getting worse,” the orthopedist obtained an MRI which was
suggestive of a mild acromioclavicular (“AC”) joint arthropathy; a shallow Hill-Sachs
fracture or micro-fracturing at the posterosuperior humeral head; osseous edema and
swelling; capsular strain and capsulitis; and mild peritendinobursitis. Id. at 11, 16.
At a January 4, 2021 follow-up orthopedic appointment, Petitioner reported an
increasing amount of shoulder pain ever since the steroid injection wore off. Ex. 6 at 10.
She had pain every night and pain with overhead activities and it did not appear to be
getting any better. Id. The orthopedic surgeon recommended, and Petitioner agree to
proceed to arthroscopic surgery. Ex. 6 at 10; see also Ex. 5 at 6 (January 26, 2021 PCP
pre-operative clearance appointment).
That surgery occurred on February 2, 2021, and included subacromial
decompression; debridement of anterior-posterior synovitis and labral fraying; and
capsular release of superior, anterior, and posterior adhesive capsulitis. The surgery
record also notes removal of “significant bursitis.” Ex. 6 at 99. Post-surgery, Petitioner
was discharged with a sling and a CryoCuff (a form of cold therapy). Id. at 9.
There is no dispute that Petitioner’s shoulder substantially recovered after her
surgery and 20 subsequent PT sessions (occurring from February 3 – April 29, 2021), Ex.
6 at 19 – 84. At the last PT session on April 29, 2021, her shoulder displayed 180 degrees
flexion, 75 degrees external rotation, 70 degrees internal rotation, and 80 degrees
scaption. She had fully achieved her goals relating to ROM and function, and nearly
achieved her goals regarding muscle strength (85%). She was running and attending
yoga classes, and sleeping on her left shoulder, with no pain with activities. She
voluntarily self-discharged from formal PT, preferring to continue with home exercises.
Ex. 6 at 19 – 21; see also Ex. 6 at 5 (May 1, 2021 orthopedics follow-up appointment).
Petitioner attended her last orthopedic appointment for her shoulder in early
August 2021. She was now “doing much better… able to do more things… occasionally
will feel a little sore and occasionally will feel some discomfort with lying on that side, but
outside of that, she is back to all of her activities and feels markedly better.” The
orthopedist recorded that P would “continue with home strengthening program, otherwise
no restrictions from my perspective. She still has another six months to gain her full
recovery. If there are any issues, she is welcome to come back.” Ex. 7 at 8.
I have also reviewed the affidavits submitted in the case. As of August 2022,
Petitioner reported that her shoulder was substantially recovered, but she still
4

Case 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/04/25 Page 5 of 7
experienced some stiffness; weakness; and discomfort during sleep. Exs. 3, 4. And in
January 2025, Petitioner clarified that a nanny (see Response at 16, citing Ex. 6 at 78)
did not live in her home, only cared for her children during work hours, and did not do
errands or household chores. Ex. 10.
Turning to the parties’ respective positions, Petitioner argues that her past pain
and suffering warrants an award of $127,500.00, particularly based on comparison to the
prior reasoned decisions in Wilson, Rafferty, and Nute. Brief at 8 – 13.5
Respondent contends that $127,500.00 would be “excessive” for this case.
Response at 2. He seeks to distinguish this case from Rafferty and Wilson, mostly based
on the duration between each vaccination and the end of formal treatment. Id. at 12 – 14.
He advocates for an unspecified lower figure, and provides a table of ten prior reasoned
decisions involving SIRVAs with “surgeries or special extenuating circumstances,” which
resulted in past pain and suffering awards ranging from $95,000.00 – $205,000.00 for
past pain and suffering. Id. at 11 – 12 (internal citations omitted). At the February 28,
2025, expedited hearing, upon my questioning about which of Respondent’s citations
were most instructive here, Respondent’s counsel mentioned Meyers, which resulted in
a past pain and suffering award of $125,000.00.6
As explained at the hearing (and in many prior cases), awarding an amount for
pain and suffering is an art and not a science. But I will not diverge from the Program’s
accumulated experience from deciding hundreds of SIRVA pain and suffering cases,
including the six-figure “baseline” for surgery cases, unless a case is shown to be a true
“outlier.” The parties should use the general landscape of past pain and suffering awards,
and specific past reasoned decisions that they believe to be directly “on point,” when
presenting their specific valuations of a case that is formally in damages. That information,
when offered by the parties, can be highly useful in guiding my award.
Overall, Ms. Richardson’s pain and suffering was roughly similar to that in her cited
cases (Wilson, Rafferty, and Nute). Respondent correctly notes that those cases involved
longer timeframes between vaccination and the end of formal treatment (roughly eleven
months in each case). Response at 13 – 14. But that durational measure does not explain
the severity of each injury – at least not alone. For instance, Rafferty included a two-
month initial treatment delay, and “significant improvement” of the SIRVA within roughly
5 Citing Wilson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-35V, 2021 WL 1530731 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar.
18, 2021) (awarding $130,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Rafferty v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2020) ($127,500.00); Nute v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-140V, 2019 WL 6125008 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 6, 2019 ($125,000.00).
6 Meyers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-779V, 2024 WL 706877 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 12,
2024) (awarding $125,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
5

Case 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/04/25 Page 6 of 7
seven months post-vaccination (followed by several more months of a home exercise
program). 2024 WL 3495956, at *15 – 16. Moreover, Ms. Richardson will not be penalized
for undergoing shoulder surgery relatively quickly (two and one-half months post-
vaccination, compared to five months post-vaccination for the Rafferty petitioner). While
Ms. Richardson’s early surgical intervention resulted in a faster substantial recovery, it
also demonstrates the severity of the acute injury, and her orthopedic surgeon’s decision
against more conservative measures.
Otherwise, I view the Rafferty petitioner’s prescription prednisone and eight PT
sessions prior to surgery as roughly similar to Ms. Richardson’s one steroid injection and
four PT sessions prior to surgery. And while the Rafferty petitioner was the primary
caregiver to three-year-old twins – one of whom suffered from autism - Ms. Richardson
also had substantial caregiving obligations for two toddlers, who were only with a nanny
while Ms. Richardson and her husband were at their full-time jobs.
There are also similarities between Ms. Richardson and the Meyers petitioner.
Each sought treatment promptly, and had early assessments of limited ROM and
developing adhesive capsulitis, high subjective pain ratings, periods of relief from steroid
injection(s), somewhat mild MRI findings (e.g., with little to no tearing), arthroscopic
surgery, and about 20 post-operative PT sessions, followed by substantial recovery. 2024
WL 706877 at *4. The most significant difference is the overall duration of treatment,
because the Meyers petitioner attempted more conservative measures (unsuccessfully)
for several more months than Ms. Richardson did. Id. The Meyers opinion briefly
references the petitioner’s employment as a dental hygienist, id. at 2, which was likely
more “hands on” and impacted by a shoulder injury than Ms. Richardson’s auditor job.
However, the Meyers opinion does not describe any impacts on the petitioner’s personal
life. In comparison, Ms. Richardson has explained that the SIRVA disrupted her ability to
care for her two very young children – which should be factored into the pain and suffering
award.
Overall based on my review of this case and comparison to Rafferty, Wilson, and
Meyers, I find it appropriate here to award $127,500.00 for past pain and suffering.7
7 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)).
6

Case 1:23-vv-00122-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/04/25 Page 7 of 7
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record,
Petitioner is awarded a lump sum of $129,489.53 (representing $127,500.00 for past
pain and suffering, plus $1,989.53 for past unreimbursable expenses) 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.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8 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.
7