VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00266
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00266
Petitioner: Amber Scott
Filed: 2024-02-21
Decided: 2026-03-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-12-02
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
On February 21, 2024, Amber Scott filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on December 2, 2022 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent conceded entitlement in a Rule 4(c) report, stating that Ms. Scott's alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found her entitled to compensation on December 3, 2024.

The parties could not resolve damages informally. Ms. Scott sought $72,000.00 for pain and suffering, while respondent proposed a lower range for what it characterized as a mild-to-moderate SIRVA. The damages record showed that she first sought care for left shoulder pain about forty days after vaccination, received a cortisone injection at that visit, and was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis. Her later treatment included an MRI showing tendinosis, edema, and subacromial bursitis; seven physical therapy sessions; two more steroid injections; and orthopedic visits through August 2023, when surgery was discussed.

Ms. Scott stated that her pain reached 8 to 9 out of 10 about two weeks after vaccination and stayed around 6 to 7 out of 10 during physical therapy. She described difficulty dressing, sleeping, cooking, and mountain-bike riding, and said she continued a home therapy program because she did not want surgery or the recovery time it would require. Chief Special Master Corcoran found the injury mildly severe, with consistent treatment for about eight months, but less prolonged and aggressive than the higher-award comparator cases.

On March 27, 2026, Chief Special Master Corcoran awarded $50,000.00 for actual pain and suffering. No separate unreimbursed expenses, future expenses, or lost wages were awarded.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine on December 2, 2022, causing Table SIRVA; COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded entitlement. Damages record: first treatment about 40 days after vaccination, cortisone injection, adhesive capsulitis diagnosis, MRI showing tendinosis/edema/subacromial bursitis, seven PT sessions, three total steroid injections, orthopedic care through August 2023, surgery discussed but not pursued. Award $50,000 pain/suffering only. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran, petition filed February 21, 2024; entitlement December 3, 2024; damages March 27, 2026. Attorney: Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00266-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-01-02
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/03/2024) regarding 18 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 20 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-266V
AMBER SCOTT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 3, 2024
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 21, 2024, Amber Scott (“Petitioner”) 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 from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving influenza (“flu”) vaccination on
December 2, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the
residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On November 22, 2024, 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, ECF No. 16. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner’s alleged
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 20 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 2
injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4 .
Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the 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_24-vv-00266-1
Date issued/filed: 2026-04-28
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/27/2026) regarding 23 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-266V
AMBER SCOTT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 27, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Camille Jordan Webster, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 21, 2024, Amber Scott 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 from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) due to an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
December 2, 2022. Petition at 1, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters, and although Respondent
ultimately conceded entitlement, the parties could not informally resolve damages.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in
the amount of $50,000.00, for actual pain and suffering.
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website 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 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 9
I. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and suffering
and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL
2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“Awards for emotional distress are
inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical formula”);
Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is inherently a
subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award for pain and
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993),
vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Special masters may consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the
resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in a specific
case. See, e.g., Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009)
(finding that “there is nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to
damages for pain and suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the
proper amount of damages in this case.”). And, of course, I may also rely on my own
experience adjudicating similar claims.3 Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d
958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated the special masters would
use their accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of
individual claims). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering
is not determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
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 discussions in Section II of Matthews v. Sec'y of
3 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. For
the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases were assigned to former Chief Special Master
Dorsey. In early October 2019, the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief
Special Master.
2

Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 3 of 9
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1396V, 2025 WL 2606607, at *2-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Aug. 13, 2025).
II. The Parties’ Arguments
The only element of damages sought by Petitioner is actual pain and suffering, but
the parties disagree as to the amount. Resp. at 2, n.1. Petitioner seeks $72,000.00 (Br.
at 1), while Respondent proposes a lesser sum based on a range of prior awards
($46,000.00 - $60,000.00) for a “mild to moderate” SIRVA. Resp. at 8-10.
In defense of her proposed sum, Petitioner describes her course of treatment,
including her decision to seek treatment within 40 days of vaccination. Br. at 7. She notes
that she was “immediately” given a cortisone injection and diagnosed with adhesive
capsulitis at that time. Id. (internal citations omitted). Petitioner states that her course of
treatment thereafter included an MRI (showing tendinosis, edema, and subacromial
bursitis), seven physical therapy (“PT”) sessions, two additional steroid injections (three
total), and orthopedic visits through August 1, 2023 – during which time the possibility of
surgery was discussed. See id. Petitioner also notes that while her pain has decreased
following treatment, at two years post vaccination she still experiences “dull achy pain
every day and has limited range of motion [(“ROM”)].” See id. at 7-8; see also Ex. 8 at 2.
Although she acknowledges her medical records do not contain many pain ratings
(Br. at 7), Petitioner attests – in a declaration drafted in support of her Motion for Damages
– that about two weeks post-vaccination, her shoulder pain reached an 8-9/10 and
remained at a 6-7/10 throughout her treatment with PT. Ex. 8 at 1. Petitioner describes
post-vaccination limitations with activities of daily living (“ADLs”), including dressing,
sleeping, cooking, and physical activities (i.e., mountain bike riding). Id. at 1-3. Petitioner
explains that despite ongoing pain following treatment with PT, she “did not want to deal
with possible repercussions of surgery” or compensate for the healing time, so she
maintained her at-home PT program. Id. at 2.
Thus, Petitioner favorably compares the duration and severity of her medical
treatment with what was experienced by the petitioners in Stiller, Hurley, Coluccio,
Williams, and Smith,4 cases featuring past pain and suffering awards ranging between
4 Stiller v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1841V, 2024 WL 4369822 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 3,
2024) (awarding $72,000.000 for past pain and suffering); Hurley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
1852V, 2024 WL 1529877 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 4, 2024) (awarding $60,000.00 for past pain and
suffering); Coluccio v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1684V, 2022 WL 17849579 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Dec. 15, 2022) (awarding $80,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Williams v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 19-1420V, 2024 WL 914908 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 30, 2024) (awarding $80,000.00 for past
pain and suffering); and Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-409V, 2023 WL 9288086 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Dec. 11, 2023) (awarding $77,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
3

Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 4 of 9
$60,000.00 and $80,000.00. Br. at 5-7. She insists that her injury and treatment course
warrant a roughly equivalent award in past pain and suffering than most of the petitioners
in her cited cases. Id. at 7-9.
Respondent, by contrast, vaguely argues Petitioner had a “mild to moderate”
injury and a modest award is thus appropriate. Resp. at 5. Unhelpfully, however,
Respondent does not specifically address the factual circumstances of Petitioner’s injury
but rather asserts that the cases she relies upon for support “are distinguishable in terms
of the time at which treatment was initially sought and the extent of the corresponding
treatment plan.” See id. at 8-10. As guidance, Respondent briefly cites numerous other
decisions featuring pain and suffering awards ranging from $49,000.00 to $60,000.00,
respectively – Stolze, Merwitz, Johnson, Schwalm, Green, Horn, Klausen, Hamilton,
Krebs, and Aponte.5 Id. Petitioner did not file any Reply thereafter.
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Past Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. Petitioner was a competent
adult with no impairments that would impact her consciousness of her injury. Therefore, I
analyze principally the severity and duration of the injury. When performing this analysis,
I review the record as a whole, including the medical records and declarations filed, and
all assertions made by the parties in written documents.
The record shows that following her vaccination, Petitioner (age 42 at the time)
suffered a mildly severe SIRVA causing her to report shoulder-related symptoms within
approximately six weeks after vaccination, and to seek consistent treatment for
approximately eight months thereafter. She first sought care for left shoulder pain (with a
visit to her primary care provider) on January 12, 2023, resulting in an assessment
specific to the left shoulder, including “adverse effect of other vaccines and biological
substances.” See Ex. 2 at 4. She received a steroid injection on that date. See id.
5 Stolze v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0964V, 2024 WL 1435684 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 26,
2024) (awarding $49,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Merwitz v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-
1141V, 2022 WL 17820768 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 14, 2022) (awarding $50,000.00 for past pain and
suffering); Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1543V, 2023 WL 3580142, (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 22, 2023) (awarding $50,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Schwalm v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 21-0066V, 2024 WL 1740482 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 21, 2024) (awarding $50,000.00 for
past pain and suffering); Green v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0378V, 2023 WL 6444421 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2023) (awarding $55,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Horn v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 21-0398V, 2024 WL 910811 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 30, 2024) (awarding $55,000.00
for past pain and suffering); Klausen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1977, 2023 WL 2368823
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 2, 2023) (awarding $60,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Hamilton v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0346V, 2023 WL 4635923 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 14, 2023) (awarding
$60,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Krebs v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-484V, 2024 WL
4930680 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 31, 2024) (awarding $60,000.00 for past pain and suffering); and Aponte
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1031V, 2022 WL 4707180 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 2, 2022)
(awarding $60,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
4

Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 5 of 9
Petitioner then received steady but conservative treatment for her left shoulder until
August 1, 2023 (thus for a total of seven months and 30 days post vaccination). See, e.g.,
Ex. 4 at 7-8.
Petitioner’s treatment for her SIRVA was fairly limited overall, and did not involve
surgery. Particularly relevant is her treatment with a total of three steroid injections, an x-
ray, an MRI (revealing tendinosis, edema, and subacromial bursitis), seven PT sessions,
and a limited number of orthopedic (and other) visits compared to what is typically seen
in other SIRVA cases in the Program. During Petitioner’s last visit in August 2023, while
surgery (versus another steroid injection) was discussed as a potential option to address
her ongoing symptoms (e.g., pain with full ROM and positive impingement signs),
Petitioner opted to forego surgery or any other treatment thereafter. Ex. 4 at 7. While I
credit Petitioner’s statements in her declaration that she experienced residual pain after
this time but did not want to grapple with the ramifications of recovering from surgery (Ex.
8), I cannot compare the facts of this case to other SIRVA cases where surgery did occur.
Still, the filed record establishes an injury that extended through August 2023, with some
mild residual sequelae not requiring ongoing care. See, e.g., Ex. 8 at 2 (describing
shoulder pain resulting in ongoing issues with sleeping and physical activities such as
bike riding).
Additionally, and consistent with Petitioner’s acknowledgement, Petitioner’s
medical records do not contain many descriptions of her pain on a ten-point scale that
would stand as evidence of more severity (in terms of damages). The one record that
does include such pain ratings supports an otherwise mild injury. For instance, during her
initial PT evaluation on March 13, 2023 (thus just over three months post vaccination),
she described her pain as a 3-4/10. Ex. 4 at 27. She also notably reported participating
in Pilates “4x/week” – thus providing evidence of an injury that was extremely mild just
three months post vaccination. See id. Petitioner attempts to make up for this omission
by assigning pain ratings after the fact in her declaration. See, e.g., Ex. 8 at 1 (rating her
pain at an 8-9/10 approximately two weeks post vaccination); id. at 2 (rating her pain at a
6-7/10 during her treatment with PT). But pain ratings reported after the fact – and
especially those that directly conflict with the entries in the contemporaneous medical
records (i.e., attesting to pain at a 6-7/10 but noting in the medical records pain at a 3-
4/10) – are afforded less weight. Added support for a showing of a mild injury comes from
medical records showing minor ROM limitations, only. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 27-28.
Turning to the parties’ cited comparable case law, Petitioner’s offered comparable
cases are mostly unhelpful in calculating pain and suffering, as they involve injuries that
exceed hers in terms of severity and duration. First, both Williams and Coluccio involved
pain and suffering awards above Petitioner’s requested amount ($80,000.00), and I
therefore do not find either case to advance Petitioner’s claim for damages. Williams v.
5

Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 6 of 9
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1420V, 2024 WL 914908 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Jan. 30, 2024); Coluccio v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1684V, 2022 WL
17849579 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 15, 2022). And, notably, to support the higher award
in Williams and Coluccio, each of those petitioners sought care sooner than Ms. Scott
here (24 and 28 days versus Petitioner’s 42), and they both underwent more than double
the amount of Petitioner’s treatment with PT (19 versus seven sessions) within roughly
the same timeframe of treatment (approximately seven and a half to eight months). See
2024 WL 914908; see also 2022 WL 17849579. I thus find an award much less than
$80,000.00 to be appropriate in this case.
Similarly, Petitioner’s reliance on Smith is somewhat misplaced, as that petitioner
sought care within 28 days of vaccination and treated for over a year-and-a-half
thereafter. Smith v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-409V, 2023 WL 9288086 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 11, 2023) (awarding $77,000.00 for past pain and suffering). The
Smith petitioner’s course of treatment included two additional PT sessions compared to
Ms. Scott (nine versus seven), but the Smith petitioner only received one steroid injection,
whereas Ms. Scott received three. See 2023 WL 9288086. These differences are thus
roughly equivalent. However, their courses differ in that the Smith petitioner treated with
prescription medications, underwent several acupuncture sessions, and rated her pain
higher on a ten-point scale in the contemporaneous medical records (5/10). See id. Given
the greater duration and severity of the Smith petitioner’s pain, Ms. Scott should receive
less than the $77,000.00 awarded in Smith.
Along the same lines, in Stiller (the only cited comparable case in which
Petitioner’s requested sum of $72,000.00 was awarded), the petitioner sought care
extremely close in time to vaccination (within two weeks) and treated for a total of 15
months (albeit with a six-month gap in care), thus substantiating a more severe injury.
Stiller v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1841V, 2024 WL 4369822 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 3, 2024). Nonetheless, the Stiller petitioner’s treatment course closely
resembled Petitioner’s, including an MRI, two steroid injections, and nine sessions of PT.
See 2024 WL 4369822. While Petitioner’s reliance on this case is more helpful than her
other cited cases, it alone is not extremely helpful in ascertaining damages. Indeed, Stiller
was decided outside the SPU, by another special master; I have often noted that cases
decided by other special masters (and those outside of the SPU), are deserving of slightly
less weight in assessing damages in SPU cases, since they can reflect one-time, outlier
constructions of an individual’s experience that do not fully take into account how
comparable individuals are compensated in SPU cases.
The final case Petitioner relies upon for support of her damages demand, however
– Hurley – is more applicable to the facts of the instant case, and notably is in line with
the upper range of Respondent’s proposed sum ($60,000.00). Hurley v. Sec’y of Health
6

Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 7 of 9
& Hum. Servs., No. 20-1852V, 2024 WL 1529877 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 4, 2024).
But I find the amount therein too high of an award to apply to the instant case. The Hurley
petitioner and Ms. Scott both treated for approximately eight months, with a limited
number of medical appointments. See 2024 WL 1529877. While both received somewhat
comparable treatment, including eleven PT sessions and one steroid injection in Hurley,
versus seven PT sessions and three injections in Ms. Scott’s case, the petitioner in Hurley
sought care much sooner than Petitioner here (within eleven days of receipt of the
vaccine) and therefore was successful in establishing a more severe injury – albeit barely.
See id. Petitioner is thus deserving of a slightly lesser award.
The cases cited by Respondent provide much more useful comparisons and thus
serve as helpful indicators for an award that appropriately compensates for Ms. Scott’s
circumstances. Nonetheless, as noted above, Petitioner deserves less than the
$60,000.00 awarded in most of Respondent’s cited cases.
In Klausen, for example, although the petitioner delayed seeking care for four
months, that petitioner treated for approximately two years, during which time Klausen
underwent five steroid injections and 16 sessions of PT – thus considerably more care
over a longer duration than Ms. Scott. Klausen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-
1977, 2023 WL 2368823 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 2, 2023). On the other hand, while
the Aponte petitioner sought care within one week of vaccination, and much of that
petitioner’s symptoms had resolved within seven-and-a-half months of treatment (though
she later returned to care following a lengthy gap), the Aponte petitioner nonetheless
received more care than Ms. Scott in approximately similar timeframes, including
attending 16 sessions of PT and receiving one steroid injection. Aponte v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 20-1031V, 2022 WL 4707180 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 2, 2022).
More so, while the petitioner in Hamilton treated for a comparably similar duration
to Ms. Scott (nine months versus eight months), that individual treated with 31 PT
sessions (albeit via telehealth) and was thus entitled to a larger sum than what is justified
here. Hamilton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0346V, 2023 WL 4635923 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 14, 2023). And, even though Ms. Scott received the same number
of steroid injections as the petitioner in Krebs, and attended more PT (seven versus two
sessions), the award in Krebs was larger in light of that petitioner’s 18-month course.
Krebs v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-484V, 2024 WL 4930680 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Oct. 31, 2024). Petitioner here should thus be awarded less than the highest end of
Respondent’s proffered sum.
Additionally, other cases on which Respondent relies for support (Green and
Horn), do not provide sufficiently adequate comparisons to the facts of Petitioner’s case.
Green v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0378V, 2023 WL 6444421 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
7

Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 8 of 9
Mstr. Sept. 1, 2023); Horn v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-0398V, 2024 WL
910811 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 30, 2024). For instance, in Green, the petitioner treated
for nearly three years, albeit with some unexplained gaps. See 2023 WL 6444421. The
Green petitioner’s course included one steroid injection, 20 sessions of PT, and four
chiropractic sessions. See id. Ms. Scott’s course was comparably less aggressive and
lengthy. Likewise, the Horn petitioner sought care much sooner than Petitioner (i.e., within
17 days of vaccination) and the injury persisted for approximately 15 months. See 2024
WL 910811. The Horn petitioner’s care itself was extremely mild, including one steroid
injection and prescription medications, only, but because the course of treatment was
longer in Horn, Ms. Scott is entitled to a slightly lesser award than the $55,000.00 awarded
in Green and Horn.
I find Ms. Scott’s circumstances to fall in line with those in Merwitz, Johnson, and
Schwalm, in which $50,000.00 was awarded for pain and suffering. The petitioner in
Merwitz, for example, like Ms. Scott, treated for approximately eight months. Merwitz v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1141V, 2022 WL 17820768 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Nov. 14, 2022). The Merwitz petitioner’s injury was otherwise mild, in that she received
one steroid injection and attended 17 sessions of PT. See 2022 WL 17820768. Although
the petitioner in Merwitz required the use of prescription medications (Meloxicam) to
manage the degree of the symptoms – thus speaking to a more severe injury than
Petitioner here who did not appear to require prescription medications – the Merwitz
petitioner delayed seeking care for three months, whereas Petitioner sought care within
just over a month of vaccination. See id. Petitioner is therefore entitled to an equivalent
award.
More so, the petitioner in Schwalm delayed care for nearly four months post
vaccination but then consistently treated for 16 months, thus double the length of
Petitioner’s eight-month course. Schwalm v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-
0066V, 2024 WL 1740482 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 21, 2024). During that time, the
Schwalm petitioner received one steroid injection, treated with prescription medications,
and attended eleven PT sessions – roughly the same amount of care Petitioner received.
See 2024 WL 1740482. And, in Johnson, though the petitioner did not receive any steroid
injections and attended minimal PT (two sessions), that petitioner treated with prescription
medications (prednisone) and numerous acupuncture sessions over a two-year period
(albeit with some gaps). Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1543V, 2023
WL 3580142, (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 2023).
On the other end of the spectrum, the award of $49,000.00 reflected in Stolze is
not quite applicable here, and is notably higher than the lowest amount in the range of
cases proffered by Respondent ($46,000.00 to $60,000.00). The Stolze petitioner
experienced an admittedly minor injury, rating the pain at a 1-2/10 in the
8

Case 1:24-vv-00266-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/28/26 Page 9 of 9
contemporaneous medical records. Stolze v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-
0964V, 2024 WL 1435684 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 26, 2024). The Stolze petitioner
delayed care for two months post vaccination, and that petitioner’s care did not include
any steroid injections, though it did include some PT and prescription medication. Ms.
Scott is therefore deserving of a minimally higher award.
Thus, I find that $50,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.
CONCLUSION
In light of all of the above, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $50,000.00,
(representing compensation for actual pain and suffering) 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.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
Decision.6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6 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.
9