The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1289V
UNPUBLISHED
BARBARA BECKMANN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 4, 2024
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on the Record; Influenza (Flu)
HUMAN SERVICES, Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1
On September 14, 2022, Barbara Beckmann 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”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Although entitlement was
conceded, the parties were unable to resolve damages informally, so they agreed instead
to submit this dispute for resolution at an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which took
place on October 25, 2024
For the reasons described below, I award $115,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, plus $308.27 for out-of-pocket expenses.
1
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).
I. Fact Evidence
Ms. Beckmann received a flu vaccine in her right shoulder on September 4, 2021.
Ex. 1 at 1. She reported shoulder pain on September 29, 2021, stating it started two hours
after vaccination. Ex. 3 at 169. Her pain was reported as eight to ten out of ten. Id. An x-
ray indicated mild degenerative changes, and an examination showed reduced range of
motion with weakness. Id. at 3 at 169, 170. A steroid injection was also administered. Id.
at 171.
Petitioner attended six physical therapy sessions, starting on October 7, 2021. Ex.
3 at 12-14. Her pain was reported as zero at best, ten out of ten at worst, and currently
seven out of ten. Id. at 12. On October 15, 2021, Petitioner reported that the steroid
injection did not provide much benefit and physical therapy made her shoulder more
painful. Id. at 188.
An MRI on October 20, 2021, revealed that Petitioner had bursitis. Ex. 3 at 129.
On November 16, 2021, she underwent arthroscopic surgery that included debridement
and subacromial decompression. Id. at 36.
Between November 29, 2021 and April 27, 2022, Petitioner attended nineteen
physical therapy sessions. Her pain improved, and by February 28, 2022 it was reported
as zero to five out of ten. Ex. 3 at 81. By April 5, 2022, Petitioner had a full and unrestricted
range of motion, great strength, and no impingement signs.
II. Damages
Petitioner argues that she is entitled to $135,000.00 for pain and suffering, and
$308.27 for out-of-pocket expenses. Petitioner’s Damages Brief (“Pet. Br.”), ECF No. 30,
at 1, 9-12. Respondent counters that a lower award of between $75,000.00 and
$85,000.00 is more appropriate in this case. Respondent’s Damages Brief (“Opp.”), ECF
No. 31, at 9-10. He does not contest the out-of-pocket expenses. Opp. at 1 n.1.
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I orally announced my ruling on
damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section
12(d)(3)(A), at the conclusion of the October 25, 2024 hearing. An official recording of the
proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in
this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded.
In a recent decision I discussed at length the legal standards to be considered in
determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I incorporate herein
2
my prior discussion in Sections V - VII of Crawford v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
19-0544V, 2024 WL 1045147, at *20-22 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 5, 2024) to the instant Ruling and
Decision. Additionally, the official recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of
various comparable cases as well as specific facts relating to Petitioner's medical history
and experience that further informed my resolution of this matter.
III. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Ms. Beckmann was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact the
awareness of her injury. Therefore, my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and
duration of Petitioner’s injury. When performing this analysis, I review the record as a
whole, including the medical records and affidavits filed, all assertions made by the parties
in written documents, and the arguments presented during the Motions Day hearing.
Petitioner cites to a number of SIRVA damages decisions that awarded between
$125,000.00 to $127,500.00 for pain and suffering. Pet. Br. at 12-14. 3 Petitioner argues
that she suffered a moderate-to-severe SIRVA over approximately one and a half years,
and her treatment involved a cortisone injection, an MRI, 25 physical therapy sessions,
and surgery. Id. 12, 15. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s SIRVA was mild-to-
moderate, justifying a lower award. Opp. at 13. In support, he cites to eight cases
awarding between $75,000.00 and $85,000.00 for pain and suffering. Id. at 9-10.
However, Respondent did not provide a specific valuation for this case.
The record in this case best supports the conclusion that Ms. Beckmann suffered
a moderate SIRVA for approximately seven months. Petitioner reported pain fairly shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Petitioner’s treatment consisted of an MRI, 25 physical therapy
sessions, and one steroid injection. Further, she experienced moderate to severe pain for
a short period, however by February 28, 2022 (six months post-vaccination) it was
reported as zero to five out of ten. Ex. 3 at 81. And she underwent surgery – a relevant
consideration when deciding whether to permit a six-figure pain and suffering award, as
requested by Petitioner herein.
I have identified one prior decision that stands as a useful comparable. Hall v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1556V, 2022 WL 2196412, at *4 (Fed. Cl. May 6,
2022) (awarding $110,000 for pain and suffering). In Hall, the petitioner had a moderate
3 Jackson v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0051V, 2023 WL 4401125 (Fed. Cl. June 2, 2023)
(awarding $125,000 for pain and suffering); Smith v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0745V, 2021
WL 2652688 (Fed. Cl. May 28, 2021) (awarding $125,000 for pain and suffering); Rafferty v. Sec'y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 (Fed. Cl. May 21, 2020) (awarding $127,500 for pain and
suffering).
3
SIRVA, one cortisone injection, 18 physical therapy sessions, and a complicated surgery
requiring two surgeons over a seven month period. Ms. Beckman had a similar treatment
course, but more physical therapy.
Balancing the severity of Petitioner’s SIRVA injury and the course of treatment
against awards made to similarly-situated Program petitioners, I find that $115,000.00 in
compensation for actual pain and suffering is reasonable and appropriate in this case
(plus the agreed-upon unreimbursed medical expenses).
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above, and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I find Petitioner is entitled to compensation. Further, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $115,308.27 (consisting of $115,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering and $308.27 in out-of-pocket expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner.
This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be
available under Section 15(a). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in
accordance with this Decision. 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4
Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or
separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
4