VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00191
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00191
Petitioner: Amie Luk
Filed: 2025-03-13
Decided: 2025-04-22
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2022-06-18
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 147872

AI-assisted case summary:
Amie Luk, an adult, received a Tdap vaccine on June 18, 2022. Approximately 39 days later, she began experiencing left shoulder pain and limited range of motion, which was diagnosed as a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Her medical records documented no prior history of shoulder pain or dysfunction. The case proceeded as a Table claim, with the respondent contesting only the timing of the onset of symptoms. The court found that the petitioner had met the criteria for a Table SIRVA, including the requirement for symptoms to manifest within 48 hours of vaccination, despite the respondent's objection to the reported onset time. The court awarded Amie Luk $140,000.00 for pain and suffering and $7,872.03 for unreimbursed expenses, for a total award of $147,872.03. The decision noted that while her injury required surgery and physical therapy, her recovery was relatively quick, distinguishing her case from others with longer treatment courses or more severe pain.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00191-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-22
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/13/2025) regarding 28 Ruling on Entitlement,, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 23-191V
UNPUBLISHED
AMIE LUK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 13, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 9, 2023, Amie Luk 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, after receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccination. Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
For the reasons described below, and after holding a “Motions Day” hearing on
entitlement and damages, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation, and I award
damages in the amount of $140,000.00, representing actual pain and suffering, plus
1 Although I have not formally designated this Decision for publication, I am required to post it on the United
States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, because it
contains a reasoned explanation for my determination. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 2 of 11
$7,872.03 for out-of-pocket unreimbursed expenses, for a total award of
$147,872.03.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was activated from “pre-assignment review” on April 13, 2023. (ECF No.
10). The parties attempted settlement, but their efforts were unsuccessful, and on January
25, 2024, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support of
Damages (“Mot.”). (ECF No. 22). On March 6, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c)
Report and Response to Petitioner’s motion (“Resp.”). (ECF No. 23). Petitioner filed a
supplemental brief (“Reply”) on March 6, 2024. (ECF No. 24).
On January 17, 2025, I proposed this case for an expedited hearing on February 28,
2025, at which time I would decide the disputed issues based on all evidence filed to date
and any oral argument from counsel. (ECF No. 27). The parties agreed, and the “Motions
Day” hearing took place as scheduled. During the hearing, I orally ruled on Petitioner’s
entitlement to compensation, and then made an oral damages determination. This
Decision memorializes those findings and determinations.
II. Relevant Factual History
On June 18, 2022, Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in her left arm. Ex. 2 at 1;
Ex. 5 at 12, 14. Her past medical history was non-contributory and she had no history of
left shoulder pain or dysfunction. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 10-36; Ex. 5 at 7-10; Ex. At 5-6.
On July 27, 2022 (39 days after vaccination), Petitioner saw family medicine
physician’s assistant Sulbha Shelare, PA-C, for left arm pain. Ex. 4 at 8. Petitioner
reported that her left arm pain began over a month earlier and that she received a Tdap
vaccination “a little before the pain started.” Id. PA Shelare’s assessment was left upper
arm pain, left shoulder and upper arm injuries, and adverse vaccine effect. Id. PA Shelare
opined that Petitioner’s condition was related to the recent vaccination, and she
prescribed a Medrol Dosepak and ordered x-rays. Id.
Two days later, on July 29, 2022, Petitioner followed up with family practice
physician Vera Oyabure, M.D. Ex. 6 at 4. Petitioner reported that she exercised but did
not think her injury was related to that. Id. Physical examination revealed decreased
active range of motion (“ROM”) with lateral raise. Id. Dr. Oyabure’s assessment was left
shoulder muscle injury and anterior deltoid bicep injury, and she recommended physical
therapy (“PT”) and caution with exercise and the use of extreme weights. Id.
2

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 3 of 11
On September 2, 2022, Petitioner returned to Dr. Oyabure for weight management.
Ex. 6 at 3. Petitioner reported that she was training for a competition and adhering to a
strict diet to try to lose weight. Id. Dr. Oyabure opined that Petitioner was possibly
malnourished. Id.
A left shoulder CT scan performed on September 22, 2022, revealed a borderline
to mildly narrowed coracohumeral interval. Ex. 7 at 7-8. On September 28, 2022, PA
Shelare discussed the CT results with Petitioner over a telemedicine visit. Petitioner
reported that since receiving the Tdap vaccine, she had pain in her left shoulder. Id. PA
Shelare’s assessment was left shoulder pain, injury, and impingement syndrome, and
she ordered an MRI and noted that Petitioner refused PT. Id.
On October 18, 2022, Petitioner saw orthopedic surgeon Volkan Guzel, M.D., for
left shoulder pain. Ex. 8 at 11. Petitioner reported that her shoulder pain had been present
since June 2022 and ranted her pain as 5-6/10. Id. Physical examination revealed diffuse
left shoulder pain, positive Neer and Hawkins signs, strength of 4/5 to 5/5, and limited
ROM due to pain. Id. at 11-12. Dr. Guzel’s assessment was left shoulder pain and
tendinitis, and he administered a subacromial steroid injection, prescribed diclofenac, and
ordered PT. Id. at 12. X-Rays from the same day revealed no osseous abnormalities. Id.
An October 24, 2022, left shoulder MRI revealed a high-grade articular surface
partial-thickness tear, centered at the anterior distal supraspinatus tendon, superimposed
on thin intrasubstance tears and tendinosis, with a thin full-thickness component to a
distal supraspinatus tendon tear possible; fluid in the subacromial subdeltoid bursa; a
longitudinal intrasubstance tear and mild tendinosis of subscapularis tendon; and a
superior labrum anterior and posterior (“SLAP”) tear. Ex. 7 at 5-6.
On October 26, 2022, Petitioner followed up with PA Shelare to review her MRI
results. Ex. 4 at 5. Petitioner reported continued left shoulder pain. PA SHelare’s
assessment was left shoulder pain, tendinitis, and a superior glenoid labrum lesion, and
she referred Petitioner to orthopedic surgery. Id.
On November 8, 2022, Petitioner followed up with Dr. Guzel to review her MRI
results. Ex. 8 at 9. Dr. Guzel’s assessment was non-traumatic incomplete tear of the left
rotator cuff, and he recommended surgical intervention. Id. at 10.
On November 9, 2022, Petitioner sought a second opinion from a different
orthopedic surgeon, Eric Sabonghy, M.D. Ex. 9 at 10. Petitioner reported that her left
shoulder pain started mid-June 2022, that her pain radiated into her arm, and she rated
the pain as severe (8/10). Id. Physical examination revealed normal ROM, strength of 3/5
to 5/5, and positive Hawkins, cross arm, impingement, and drop arm special tests. Id. at
3

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 4 of 11
12-13. Dr. Sabonghy’s assessment was acute left shoulder pain, bursitis, rotator cuff
strain, and a superior glenoid labrum lesion, and he recommended both surgical and non-
surgical treatment options. Id. at 14. He prescribed meloxicam and a Medrol Dosepak. Id.
at 15-16.
On January 10, 2023, Petitioner underwent left shoulder surgery, including the
following procedures: arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair, SLAP repair, extensive intra-
articular debridement, and subacromial decompression with large acromioplasty. Ex. 10
at 69-71. Petitioner’s final diagnoses were rotator cuff tear, SLAP lesion type 2,
subacromial impingement, and spurring. Id. Petitioner was prescribed Toradol and Norco
for pain during recovery. Ex. 9 at 29.
On January 16, 2023, Petitioner presented for a post-operative follow-up
appointment. Ex. 9 at 30. Petitioner reported sharp, aching pain of 4/10 that was
improving. Id. She was referred to PT. Id. at 32.
Between February 7 and June 29, 2023, Petitioner participated in 21 post-
operative PT sessions. Ex. 12; Ex. 14. At the initial evaluation, the therapist noted
Petitioner was very scared of engaging in therapy, and Petitioner reported pain of 7-9/10
Ex. 12 at 3. The therapy plan was for three sessions a week for eight weeks. By June
2023, Petitioner reported that her arm was feeling better and that she was exercising
daily. Ex. 14 at 62. The therapist noted Petitioner had increased ROM and strength and
decreased tightness. Id. at 63.
Petitioner had post-operative follow-up appointments on February 13, March 13,
April 10, and June 12, 2023. Ex. 13 at 18-90. On February 13, 2023, Petitioner reported
significant improvement and no pain. Id. at 41. On June 12, 2023, Petitioner again
reported no pain, her physical examination was normal, and Dr. Sabonghy opined that
Petitioner was “doing very well overall” with “No significant pain or dysfunction.” Id. at 81-
85.
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.
4

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 5 of 11
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
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
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).
5

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 6 of 11
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 the onset of Petitioner’s pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.
Response at 6; see 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii); see also 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B)
(requiring the first symptom or manifestation of onset within 48 hours of vaccination for a
SIRVA injury following receipt of a flu vaccine). Respondent argues that Petitioner’s
delayed initial presentation of one month and nine days, along with vague onset
references, are not enough to establish that pain began within 48 hours of vaccination.
Id.
Notwithstanding Respondent’s objection, I find that the delay in question is not
facially unreasonable, especially in comparison to what has characterized the course of
seeking treatment for many other successful claims. And it is frequently observed in
SIRVA cases that claimants expect any post-vaccination pain to be transient, or not
serious enough to merit evaluation by a medical professional. The record reflects that
Petitioner sought treatment for her shoulder pain in a relatively timely manner (i.e.,
approximately one month post-vaccination).
Otherwise, the record contains sufficient evidence showing Petitioner has satisfied
the other QAI criteria. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i) & (iii)-(iv). A thorough review of the
6

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 7 of 11
record in this case does not reveal either a prior or current condition, pain and limited
range of motion (“ROM”) other than in Petitioner’s injured left shoulder, and no other
condition or abnormality which would explain Petitioner’s symptoms. Petitioner’s medical
records consistently reflect her reporting immediate shoulder pain post-vaccination. Thus,
and as I stated during the expedited hearing, all elements of a Table SIRVA claim have
been preponderantly established.
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). In this case,
Respondent has not offered any argument to suggest that Petitioner has failed to meet
these other requirements, and my review of the record confirms that Petitioner has
preponderantly established that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for
more than six months and that there has been no other award or settlement. Accordingly,
Petitioner is entitled to compensation for her SIRVA.
IV. Compensation to be Awarded
A. Parties Arguments
Prior to oral argument, the parties submitted that they had agreed on an amount
to be awarded for Petitioner’s out-of-pocket unreimbursed expenses. Therefore, the only
issue of contention remaining is what amount of past pain and suffering to award.
Petitioner seeks $160,000.00, maintaining that her treatment involved multiple
doctor’s appointments, an MRI, 21 physical therapy sessions, one cortisone injection, and
one surgery, and that she still experiences the sequela of her SIRVA injury to this day.
Br. at 17. She favorably compares the facts and circumstances in her case to those
experienced by the petitioners in Tumolo, S.C., and Reed, who received $170,000.00,
$160,000.00, and $160,000.00, respectively for their past pain and suffering.4 Id. at 23-
25.
In contrast, Respondent argues that the facts and circumstances in the instant
case are less severe than in any of the cases to which Petitioner has cited. However,
4 Tumolo v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-343V, 2020 WL 6279711 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 1,
2020); S.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.29-341V, 2021 WL 2949763 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jun.
14, 2021); Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Feb. 1, 2019).
7

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 8 of 11
Respondent does not offer any cases he believes to be more on point than those relied
upon by Petitioner, nor does he even provide a number which he believes to be a more
reasonable award for pain and suffering.
In her reply, Petitioner reiterates her belief that her cited cases stand as
appropriate comparables to the instant case.
A. Legal Standards for Pain and Suffering Awards
In another 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 II and III of Friberg v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 19-1727V, 2022 WL 3152827 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6, 2022).
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.5
B. 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 her
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
carefully reviewed and taken into account the complete record in this case, including, but
not limited to: Petitioner’s medical records, signed affidavits, filings, and all assertions
made by the parties in written documents and at the expedited hearing held on February
28, 2025. 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.
5 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)).
8

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 9 of 11
Pursuant to my oral ruling on February 28, 2025 (which is fully adopted herein), I
find that $140,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for
Petitioner’s pain and suffering.
In making this determination, I have considered the moderate nature of Petitioner’s
left shoulder pain and limited ROM and her good prognosis post-surgery, particularly her
quick recovery. Prior to surgery, Petitioner consistently reported moderate pain and
limited range of motion in her left shoulder and when the pain did not subside her doctors
ordered an MRI. The results of this MRI confirmed the need for surgical intervention. Post-
surgery, Petitioner consistently reported improved pain (her first PT session
notwithstanding). Her post-surgery treatment also involved 21 PT sessions, at the
conclusion of which Petitioner demonstrated no significant pain or dysfunction along with
improved ROM and strength. Ex. 12 at 63. Approximately one year from her initial
vaccination, Petitioner had essentially fully recovered from her injury and surgery.
Although Petitioner has indicated in her affidavit that she still experiences some pain in
her shoulder to this day, it does not appear severe enough to interfere with Petitioner’s
daily life activities, and Petitioner has not had to seek additional treatment for pain
management.
The overall severity of the SIRVA in the instant case was not high enough to
warrant $160,000.00 in damages. The cases cited to by Petitioner are distinguishable
due to the greater severity of injury in those circumstances. In Tumolo, for example, the
petitioner underwent a somewhat similar treatment course (one surgery, two steroid
injections, four MRIs, 14 PT sessions) but the clinical course of treatment lasted for
approximately four years. Like Ms. Luk, the petitioner’s symptoms were well-resolved
following surgery and PT, but the much longer course differentiates this case as more
severe. Tumolo, 2020 WL 6279711, at *14-16.
Similarly, in S.C., although the petitioner only required one surgery, which was
successful at resolving the most serious reported symptoms, the petitioner required four
steroid injections and 95 sessions of PT over the course of approximately three years,
indicative of a more severe injury which required more aggressive management of
symptoms prior to surgery. S.C., 2021 WL 2949763, at *3-4.
Finally, in Reed, the petitioner required two steroid injections, one surgery, and 31
sessions of PT over a clinical course of approximately two years. Reed, 2019 WL
1222925, at 14-16. Additionally the pain experienced by the Reed petitioner was generally
more severe than the pain in the instant case, with the petitioner consistently reporting
pain levels of 6-9/10 and using words such as “searing”, “intense”, and “burning.” Id. The
petitioner also displayed uniquely challenging personal circumstances, with her shoulder
9

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 10 of 11
injury making care for her young child with ADHD autism spectrum disorder far more
difficult than it had previously been. Id. at 16.
Respondent unhelpfully elected not to propose a counter-sum for pain and
suffering, nor did he cite to any cases which he believes serve as better comparable fact
patterns. Instead, he simply attempts to distinguish the instant case from Petitioner’s cited
comparables by noting the overall less-severe nature of Petitioner’s injury and course of
treatment. Respondent is correct in his assessment that the instant case is less-severe
than those in Tumolo, S.C., and Reed, but by not offering any comparable cases of his
own, or even a simple sum that Respondent believes to be a more-reasonable pain and
suffering amount, I am not inclined to deviate too far from Petitioner’s proposed sum
backed with comparable cases as justification.
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 $140,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.6 Finally,
pursuant to the agreement of the parties, I find that $7,872.03 represents a fair and
appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s out-of-pocket unreimbursed
expenses.
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $147,872.03, representing compensation for her actual pain
and suffering and out-of-pocket unreimbursed expenses 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.7
6 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)).
7 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

Case 1:23-vv-00191-UNJ Document 35 Filed 04/22/25 Page 11 of 11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
11