VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00605
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00605
Petitioner: Bonnie McClelland
Filed: 2024-04-18
Decided: 2025-05-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2022-09-16
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 105000

AI-assisted case summary:
Bonnie McClelland, a 67-year-old widow, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on April 18, 2024. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on September 16, 2022. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on October 16, 2024, conceding that Ms. McClelland was entitled to compensation and that her alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on October 22, 2024, finding Ms. McClelland entitled to compensation. The parties were unable to agree on damages, leading to a hearing on April 30, 2025. Ms. McClelland received the influenza vaccine in her dominant right arm on September 16, 2022. Ten days later, she reported pain and limited range of motion in her shoulder. Her condition progressed, leading to a diagnosis of new onset of rotator cuff tendinitis, a Type II B SLAP tear, partial tearing of the supraspinatus and subscapularis tendons, and mild tendinosis of the infraspinatus and biceps tendons, as visualized on an MRI. She underwent arthroscopic surgery on February 1, 2023, for rotator cuff repair, superior labral tear repair, and related procedures. Following surgery and physical therapy, Ms. McClelland reported significant recovery with no pain by April 2023, though she was cautioned against heavy lifting. In her petition, Ms. McClelland sought $108,000.00 for past pain and suffering, citing prior SIRVA cases. The respondent proposed an award of $77,500.00, arguing that her pain and suffering was limited and her recovery was good. Chief Special Master Corcoran, in a decision issued May 30, 2025, awarded Ms. McClelland $105,000.00 for past pain and suffering. The Special Master noted that a six-figure baseline is generally appropriate for SIRVA surgery cases and found the award comparable to prior cases, considering the severity and duration of the injury, the necessity of surgery, and the fact that the surgery was more invasive than in some comparable cases. The award was for past pain and suffering only. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie of Howie Law, PC, and Respondent was represented by Dorian Hurley of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Bonnie McClelland, age 67, received an influenza vaccine on September 16, 2022. She alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing the injury was consistent with SIRVA on the Vaccine Injury Table. The parties could not agree on damages. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $105,000.00 for past pain and suffering in a decision dated May 30, 2025. The award was based on the severity and duration of the injury, which required arthroscopic surgery for rotator cuff repair and related procedures, and comparison to prior SIRVA surgery cases. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie, and Respondent by Dorian Hurley.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00605-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-11-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/22/2024) regarding 17 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 21 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-605V
BONNIE MCCLELLAND, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: October 22, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 18, 2024, Bonnie McClelland filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. (the
1
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine which she received on
September 16, 2022. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 16, 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. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 6 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a),
(c)(10)). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.
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.

Case 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 21 Filed 11/22/24 Page 2 of 2
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-00605-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-05-30
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/30/2025) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-0605V
BONNIE MCCLELLAND, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: April 30, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Dorian Hurley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 18, 2024, Bonnie McClelland 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September
16, 2022. 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 damages, and their dispute was therefore submitted
to resolution at a “Motions Day” proceeding on April 30, 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 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/25 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 $105,000.00 (for past pain and suffering).
I. Procedural History
The case was assigned to SPU in July 2024. ECF No. 10. In October 2024,
Respondent conceded entitlement of Petitioner’s SIRVA in a Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No.
15); and I issued a Ruling on Entitlement (ECF No. 17).
Petitioner also reported that damages could not be informally resolved (ECF No.
16), so the parties promptly set forth their respective positions. Brief filed Oct. 22, 2024
(ECF No. 19); Respondent filed Dec. 6, 2024 (ECF No. 22); Reply filed Dec. 22, 2024
(ECF No. 27); see also Joint Status Report filed Mar. 24, 2025 (ECF No. 29) (confirming
that Petitioner was only seeking an award of pain and suffering, and that the parties were
amenable and available for an expedited ruling).
At the end of the April 30, 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 on 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
Sections I and II of Timberlake v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1905V, 2025 WL
721730 at *1 – 3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 19, 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.3
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)).
2

Case 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/25 Page 3 of 7
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 medical records reflect that Petitioner was a generally healthy and retired 67-
year-old widow, living with her son and grandchildren in Texas at the time she received
the flu vaccine in her dominant right arm on September 16, 2022. Ex. 3 at 59. The vaccine
was administered during a rheumatology appointment. Id.
Ten days later, on September 26, 2022, Petitioner reported post-vaccination acute
pain (rated 4/10) and limited range of motion (“ROM”) to a primary care provider (“PCP”)
– but no corresponding physical examination, assessment, or treatment plan was
provided. Ex. 4 at 214 – 19, 228.
On October 12, 2022, Petitioner sought her rheumatologist’s “urgent” evaluation
of the right shoulder injury from the vaccination administered at that office. Ex. 3 at 75.
The pain was severe, worse upon elevation, and only partially relieved by ibuprofen or
topical Voltaren gel. Id. On exam, the shoulder had limited abduction (80 degrees) and
pain with passive ROM. Id. at 76. The rheumatologist tentatively assessed that the
vaccine had caused “new onset of rotator cuff tendinitis.” The rheumatologist
administered a steroid injection, encouraged “gentle stretching and avoid[ing] excessive
activity,” adding that Petitioner could consider formal physical therapy (“PT”) if the steroid
injection did not deliver improvement. Id. at 77.
On November 9, 2022, the rheumatologist ordered an MRI of Petitioner’s right
shoulder. Ex. 3 at 91. Once obtained on December 7, 2022, the MRI visualized a Type II
B SLAP tear; partial tearing of the supraspinatus and subscapularis tendons; and mild
tendinosis of the infraspinatus and biceps tendons. Ex. 5 at 124. The next day, the
rheumatologist requested an orthopedic surgeon’s consultation “for management of R
right rotator cuff tear and tendinitis [which] has failed with cortisone injection.” Ex. 6 at 44.
3

Case 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/25 Page 4 of 7
At the December 22, 2022 orthopedics initial evaluation,4 Petitioner reported pain
in her right shoulder since the flu shot three months prior. Ex. 6 at 31. She had trouble
raising her arm and sleeping on the shoulder. Id. The cortisone injection had helped with
“some” of her ROM but had not relieved her pain. Id.5 Petitioner emphasized that the
injury was to her dominant arm, and she wanted it fixed. Id. an exam found decreased
ROM (active flexion 130 degrees; abduction 120; external rotation 80); positive Neers
and Hawkins signs; and 4+/5 strength. Id. at 32 – 33. The orthopedist “believe[d] her best
outcome would be with an arthroscopy with rotator cuff repair… lysis of adhesions and
manipulation under anesthesia for superimposed adhesive capsulitis. She also potentially
has a superior labral tear.” Id. at 33. After being informed of the risks of surgery (including
shoulder stiffness, infection, nerve or vessel injury, blood clot, anesthesia reactions,
allergic reaction, and death), Petitioner elected to proceed to surgery, to be scheduled
“as soon as possible.” Id.
On January 12, 2023, Petitioner underwent several labs and an EKG in preparation
for her surgery. Ex. 6 at 52 – 58. At a January 23, 2023 pre-surgical evaluation, Petitioner
confirmed that her right shoulder pain was chronic, progressing, interfering with daily
activity, and resistant to conservative treatment. Ex. 5 at 141. She was cleared for “major
elective surgery with identified risk factors.” Id. at 145.
On February 1, 2023, the orthopedic surgeon performed a right shoulder
arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; superior labral, anterior labral, and chondral synovial
debridement; and subacromial decompression.” Ex. 5 at 230. The post-operative
diagnoses were a “right shoulder rotator cuff tear with type 1 SLAP anterior labral tear as
well as chondromalacia and capsulitis with impingement.” Id. During the procedure,
Petitioner had general endotracheal anesthesia and an interscalene block. Id. at 230 –
31. Id. She tolerated the surgery well, and went home the same day with her right arm
immobilized. Id. at 232. She was also given a CryoCuff (cold therapy), a prescription for
the pain medication Norco, and instructions for home exercises. Id. at 233.
By a February 16, 2023 orthopedics follow-up, Petitioner was doing well and was
not taking pain medication. Her sutures were removed, and she was authorized to wean
off the immobilizer and start formal post-operative PT. Ex. 6 at 60.
4 Additionally on December 22, 2022, Petitioner underwent an x-ray of the left shoulder, with unremarkable
findings. Ex. 3 at 134.
5 On an orthopedics new patient questionnaire, Petitioner reported that her pain level varied. It was
occasional, dull, aching, and throbbing. She had received some relief from heat therapy. Ex. 6 at 50.
4

Case 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/25 Page 5 of 7
At the February 24, 2023 PT initial evaluation, Petitioner’s right shoulder pain
ranged from 0 – 6/10 (aggravated by movement), her ROM was limited (active flexion
100 degrees, abduction 72, extension 55), and she had mild shoulder hiking at rest. Ex.
8 at 17 - 18. The therapist recommended services to reduce her pain and increase ROM,
strength, posture, and functional mobility. Id. at 19.
The records of nine subsequent PT sessions, and an intervening orthopedics
follow-up, reflect that Petitioner’s pain with movement decreased to 2/10. She tolerated
her exercises, made excellent gains in ROM, was sleeping well, and was pleased with
her progress. See generally Ex. 8 at 38 – 126; Ex. 6 at 81 – 103.
At her tenth and last formal PT session on March 29, 2023, Petitioner reported
0/10 pain, except for stiffness after performing her home exercises. Ex. 8 at 114. Her right
shoulder had normal ROM measures (active flexion 170 degrees, abduction 170,
extension 65) and full strength. Id. at 115. She had achieved all goals, but was instructed
to continue (unspecified) home exercises. Id. at 116.
At a final orthopedics follow-up appointment on April 25, 2023, Petitioner confirmed
that her right shoulder had “no pain,” and improved ROM and strength attributable to her
PT. Ex. 6 at 105. After confirming those findings on exam, the orthopedist recommended
that Petitioner “continue to work on range of motion and strengthening. Activities as
tolerated. Did caution her against lifting more than 10 pounds shoulder height and above
for the next 4 to 6 weeks.” Id. at 106. No further records have been filed.
In April 2024, Petitioner confirmed: “I have experienced a significant recovery from
my injury. While I continue to experience occasional pain in my right shoulder, the pain I
experience is minor. Further, with some stretching and mobilization of my arm, the pain
typically resolves.” Ex. 1 at ¶ 25.
Petitioner argues that her past pain and suffering warrants an award of
$108,000.00, particularly based on comparison to the prior reasoned decisions of Selling,
Meyers, Collado, and Knudson. Brief at 16 - 27.6 Respondent proposes a significantly
lower award of $77,500.00 – maintaining that SPU has applied an undue premium on the
mere occurrence of arthroscopic surgery while evaluating pain and suffering. Response
at 7. Respondent “has not identified cases involving a surgical intervention that serve as
6 Citing Selling v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0588V, 2019 WL 3425224 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
May 2, 2019) (awarding $105,000.00 for past pain and suffering); Vaccaro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 19-1883V, 2022 WL 662550 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2020) ($110,000.00); Knudson v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1004V, 2018 WL 6293381 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) ($110,000.00);
Cates v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0277V, 2020 WL 3751072 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5,
2020) ($108,000.00).
5

Case 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/25 Page 6 of 7
a direct comparison to this case,” but contends that notwithstanding Ms. McClelland’s
surgery, her pain and suffering was limited and she achieved a very good recovery within
seven months post-vaccination. Respondent also argues that Ms. McClelland’s pain and
suffering was less severe than that established in Hunt and her cited cases. Id. at 7 – 12.7
As explained at the April 30, 2025 hearing (and in many prior cases), awarding an
amount for pain and suffering is an art and not a science. The parties should look to 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 (although a petitioner’s personal
circumstances are always the foundation of the award ultimately issued).
I also have routinely found that it is generally appropriate to start with a six-figure
“baseline” for past pain and suffering for a SIRVA surgery case. Both medical providers’
recommendation of surgery, and an individual’s acceptance of that intervention (and its
attendant risks), is one relevant measure of an injury’s severity. I am not inclined to
diverge from that baseline absent special circumstances and persuasive caselaw that
supports a lower award.
Petitioner correctly notes that Selling “sets more of a floor than a ceiling for what
damages should be” in a SIRVA surgery case. Brief at 16, quoting Meyers v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0909V, 2020 WL 375535, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
5, 2020). In Selling, Special Master Oler recognized that the petitioner did not undergo
“open and invasive surgery,” but at the same time, the “necessity for general anesthesia
indicate[d] great pain during his [comparatively less invasive] manipulation procedure.”
2019 WL 3425224, at *6.
Selling is also roughly comparable to this case. The Selling petitioner had a
significantly longer initial treatment delay (8 weeks, compared to 10 days for Ms.
McClelland), which tends to suggest more manageable initial pain – notwithstanding his
high pain ratings after seeking treatment, and difficulty continuing to serve as his wife’s
sole caregiver (Ms. McClelland has not shown comparable personal circumstances). The
Selling petitioner’s treatment course was longer (13 months, compared to 7 months for
Ms. McClelland) because he and his providers tried conservative measures including PT
prior to eventually resorting to surgery ten months post-vaccination. In comparison, on an
orthopedist’s advice, Ms. McClelland underwent surgery just four and one-half months
post-vaccination. And while both petitioners underwent general anesthesia, Ms.
7 Citing Hunt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
June 16, 2022) (awarding $95,000.00 for past pain and suffering).
6

Case 1:24-vv-00605-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/30/25 Page 7 of 7
McClelland’s surgery was more invasive – involving a rotator cuff tear, debridement, and
decompression, and requiring subsequent immobilization and suture removal.
During the hearing, I took note of Respondent’s argument that Ms. McClelland’s
SIRVA pain and suffering award should not compensate for surgical repair of “unrelated”
pathology such as rotator cuff and SLAP tears. But in this case (as in many), that
unrelated pathology appears to have been asymptomatic, and only discovered through
the medical evaluation of the SIRVA (even though it is not evident that the rotator cuff
and SLAP tears were “significantly aggravated” by the SIRVA). In essence, that additional
pathology does not mean that the SIRVA pain and suffering award should be discounted.
Overall based on my review of this case and comparison to Selling, I find it
appropriate here to award $105,000.00 for past pain and suffering.8
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the entire record,
Petitioner is awarded a lump sum of $105,000.00 (for past pain and suffering) 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.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8 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)).
9 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