Trala v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-2062V

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELE TRALA, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: January 6, 2026

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

David J. Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Jamica M. Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 25, 2021, Michele Trala 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 a tetanus,

diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on October 30, 2020. Petition at 1

(ECF No. 1). The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of

Special Masters (the “SPU”).

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).

For the reasons set forth below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation,

and I award damages in the amount of $71,000.00, representing actual pain and

suffering.

I. Procedural History

This case was activated from “pre-assignment review” on March 9, 2022. (ECF

No. 10). The parties attempted settlement, but their efforts were unsuccessful, and on

November 1, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record and Brief in Support

of Damages (“Mot.”). (ECF No. 23). On December 12, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule

4(c) Report and Response to Petitioner’s motion (“Resp.”). (ECF No. 24). Petitioner filed

a supplemental brief (“Reply”) on January 22, 2024. (ECF No. 27). This matter is now ripe

for disposition.

II. Relevant Factual History

On September 22, 2020, Petitioner saw a primary care physician’s assistant

(“PA”), Janet May, at Southgate Medical Group (“Southgate”) for a routine checkup and

to follow up on her chronic conditions. Ex. 3 at 31. Her review of systems was negative

for any joint pain or myalgia. Id. On exam, both of her upper extremities were normal to

inspection and palpation, and her strength was normal and symmetric. Id. at 33.

On October 30, 2020, Petitioner presented to an urgent care clinic for a burn to her

right chest wall. Ex. 1 at 10. She reported that she was lifting a bag of hot food when it

broke open, spilling the food onto her right breast. Id. On exam, Petitioner had redness

and blistering of the skin at the burn site. Id. at 11. Her musculoskeletal review simply

noted that she had normal gait and posture. Id. At that visit, Petitioner was given the

subject Tdap vaccine, although the site of vaccination was not documented. Id.

Three days later (November 2, 2020), Petitioner returned to the urgent care clinic

for a concern that the burn area was infected. Ex. 1 at 8. She denied any fever and had

no other complaints and made no reference to the vaccinated shoulder. Id. A review of

the musculoskeletal system reported only that Petitioner had a normal gait and posture.

Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with a burn of the chest wall and prescribed Keflex for

possible cellulitis. Id. at 8-9.

On November 4, 2020, Petitioner returned to the urgent care clinic. Ex. 1 at 5. The

record from this visit indicates that “[Patient] now states that the burn is still not improving

and that she is having a reaction to the tetanus shot.” Id. She specifically complained of

swelling, sharp pains, and decreased range of motion (“ROM”) of the upper left arm

2

“surrounding the site of the tetanus shot.” Id. She characterized the intensity of her pain

as “moderate.” Id.

On exam, Petitioner had redness and sloughing of the skin of the right chest wall,

as well as a ten-by-fifteen-centimeter area of redness, warmth, and swelling of the left

upper arm. Ex. 1 at 6. She had normal ROM of the left arm, but with pain. Id. She was

diagnosed with cellulitis and prescribed the antibiotic Bactrim, along with another course

of Keflex. Id. at 7.

On November 6, 2020, Petitioner was seen at the Erie County Medical Center

(“ECMC”) Burn Clinic for her chest wall burn. Ex. 5 at 4. She did not mention any shoulder

pain, and there is no documentation of an exam of the left shoulder. Id. She was

prescribed oxycodone and silver sulfadiazine ointment for her burn. Id. at 6. On November

10, 2020, she followed up with a nurse in the ECMC Burn Clinic. Id. at 3. Again, she did

not complain of any shoulder pain, and the nurse did not document a shoulder exam. Id.

On December 10, 2020, Petitioner had a telehealth visit with PA May for left arm

pain. Ex. 3 at 36. Petitioner reported that she developed pain at the site of the vaccine

injection, and “the next day woke up with swelling and redness.” Id. She complained of

continuing upper-arm pain “since tetanus vaccine.” Id. She reported that the swelling and

redness had improved, but she still had sharp and stabbing pain when moving the

shoulder and was unable to lift her arm over her head. Id. She denied any residual pain

from her burns. Id. PA May was unable to examine Petitioner’s left shoulder over video,

but she documented that Petitioner had limited ROM of the left shoulder “above head due

to pain.” Ex. 3 at 37. She diagnosed pain of the left shoulder and advised Petitioner to

take naproxen sodium. Id. She also referred Petitioner to an orthopedist. Id.

On December 22, 2020, Petitioner saw orthopedic nurse practitioner (“NP”) John

Hanavan at Southgate. Ex. 3 at 39. She reported that she had “ongoing left shoulder pain

that began [October 31] after receiving a tetanus shot for third-degree burns right lateral

chest.” Id. She stated that the night of the vaccination she developed redness, induration,

and swelling with increased left shoulder pain and painful, limited ROM. Id. She was

unable to sleep on the left side and reported difficulty with rotational movements. Id.

On exam, Petitioner had painful, limited flexion and elevation to about ninety

degrees, with end-range pain. Ex. 3 at 40. She had crepitus with passive motion, but her

external rotation was nearly normal. Id. She had good strength with resisted motion

testing, which was characterized as “relatively pain-free.” Id. She had significant

tenderness of the lateral shoulder and acromial area, but no such tenderness of the

sternoclavicular or acromioclavicular joints. Id. An x-ray of the left shoulder showed a well-

preserved glenohumeral joint, minimal sclerotic changes in the greater tuberosity, and a

3

tiny calcification adjacent to the glenoid. Id. at 41; Ex. 4 at 58. NP Hanavan assessed

Petitioner with impingement syndrome of the left shoulder, noting that her “[s]ymptoms

began [the] same night that she received a tetanus injection [in the] left arm.” Ex. 3 at 41.

He administered a steroid injection, after which Petitioner reported improved ROM. Id. He

referred her to physical therapy (“PT”) and prescribed Tramadol for breakthrough pain.

Id.

On January 6, 2021, Petitioner underwent an initial PT evaluation. Ex. 7 at 4. She

reported that she had received a tetanus shot after getting burned, and that later that

night she started feeling pain in her shoulder, that the pain kept her up at night and was

worse in the morning, and that her range of motion was limited, especially with lifting,

dressing, and washing her hair. Id. She rated on pain at that time as 8/10. Id. (Overall,

Petitioner participated in 23 PT sessions between January 6 and June 1, 2021. Id. at 50.

By the end of this timeframe, she reported only slight pain when lifting her arm above her

head and was discharged with a home exercise program. Id.)

On January 26, 2021, Petitioner returned to NP Hanavan. Ex. 3 at 42. She reported

some improvement after the steroid injection. Id. She was undergoing PT and had

recently experienced improvement with a “bumped up” PT program.2 Id. On exam, she

had “marked improvement” in ROM, with forward flexion to 170 degrees with end range

pain. Id. at 43. She had normal strength but had positive Hawkins, “thumbs down,” and

Kennedy tests. Id. NP Hanavan’s assessment remained impingement of the left shoulder.

Id. He administered a second steroid injection, with good pain relief. Id. The plan was to

proceed with an MRI if petitioner failed to improve over the next several weeks.

On March 26, 2021, Petitioner saw primary care physician Richard Karaga, D.O.,

at Southgate for follow up of her chronic medical issues. Ex. 3 at 45. A ROS was positive

for a several-month history of right knee problems that were worse with walking and

positional changes. Id. Petitioner did not report any shoulder pain, and no exam of the left

shoulder was recorded. Id. at 46.

On June 30, 2021, eight months after the subject vaccination, Petitioner returned

to PA Hanavan and reported that she felt 98% better, with only occasional discomfort with

reaching overhead or rotating her arm. Ex. 3 at 49. She characterized her symptoms as

“[n]othing sustained and nothing [that gave] her any significant disability.” Id. She reported

that she had completed her formal PT. Id. On exam, she had bilateral, symmetric ROM,

strength, and stability, with some end range pain on the left side. Id. at 50. Impingement

testing was negative, and she had no tenderness to palpation. Id. No further treatment

was prescribed, and Petitioner was directed to follow up on an as-needed basis. Id.

4

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.

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:

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

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

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 SIRVA element 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 failed to report her

shoulder symptoms when she was seen at urgent care three days post-vaccination for

possible infection of her burn site, although when she returned two days later she reported

symptoms. Response at 7. Respondent argues this is “strong evidence that she was not

experiencing any shoulder symptoms on November 2” and that when she did initially

6

report symptoms on November 4, she “did not specify that her shoulder symptoms started

immediately after the vaccination.” Id. at 8. Respondent also points to the record which

states that Petitioner “now states that the burn is still not improving and that she is having

a reaction to the tetanus shot”, contending that this present-tense wording indicates that

Petitioner’s reported shoulder symptoms were new since November 2 placing onset

outside the 48-hour window. Id.

On review, I find that the record contains adequate evidence in favor of Petitioner

on this issue. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s two initial urgent care visits, Petitioner has

consistently described to her treating physicians that the onset of her symptoms began

within 48-hours of her vaccination. On December 10, 2020, Petitioner indicated that she

developed pain at the injection site and “the next day woke up with swelling and redness,”

and again on December 22, 2020, she reported that shoulder symptoms, including pain,

began the night of her vaccination. Ex. 3 at 26, 29.

Respondent asks that the greater weight be placed on the earlier urgent care visits

than on these other visits which took place approximately six and eight weeks following

vaccination, respectively. But it is not necessarily unreasonable for Petitioner not to have

mentioned left shoulder symptoms during this urgent care visit, because the primary

concern she had was for potential infection of a burn she had suffered only three days

earlier. I also note that Petitioner has indicated in her sworn affidavit that she did mention

pain in her left shoulder, but that she was told this was a normal reaction to vaccination.

Ex. 2. Additionally, only two days later, Petitioner reported pain in her left shoulder

“surrounding the site of the tetanus shot.” Ex. 1 at 5. Although this record is silent as to

the specific timing of onset, it certainly does not cut against the subsequent records which

clearly and consistently place onset as within 48-hours of vaccination. I therefore find that

the evidence preponderates in favor of Petitioner on the issue of onset.

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

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,

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,

7

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

Petitioner seeks $78,000.00 in pain and suffering damages as compensation for

her injury. 4 In support of this amount, Petitioner cites to Hartman, Miller, and Bergstrom.5

Petitioner has also cited favorably to Callejas, Belka, Celuch, and Cavalier (albeit

supporting the lower sum of $68,000.00). 6 Respondent argues that Petitioner should be

awarded only $60,000.00 for her pain and suffering. Response at 10. Respondent notes

that Petitioner’s injury was relatively mild, and that the facts of this matter compare closest

to Berberich v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-10V, 2021 WL 4823551 (Fed. Cl.

Spec. Mstr. Sept. 14, 2021).

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

4 In her motion, Petitioner initially requested $68,000.00 for pain and suffering. Mot. at 23. However,

between filing this motion and her reply brief, Petitioner obtained and filed the medical records pertaining

to her 23 PT sessions. Petitioner argues that these updated records reflect a more serious injury with more

treatment than what the original record indicated and therefore is worth a greater sum. Reply at 4.

5 Hartman v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-1106V, 2022 WL 444456 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan.

14, 2022); Miller v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-959V, 2023 WL 4312920 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.

Jun. 1, 2023); Bergstrom v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-784V, 2021 WL 5754968 (Fed. Cl. Spec.

Mstr. Nov. 2, 2021).

6 Callejas v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1767V, 2023 WL 12073989 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May

5, 2023); Belka v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-585V, 2022 WL 4717891 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.

Sept. 1, 2022); Celuch v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-544V, 2021 WL 2368137 (Fed. Cl. Spec.

Mstr. May 10, 2021); Cavalier v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 21-389V, 2023 WL 5500404 (Fed. Cl.

Spec. Mstr. Jul. 25, 2023).

8

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. 7

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. 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.

Based upon the record as it currently stands and consideration of relevant

comparable cases, I find that $71,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount

of compensation for Petitioner’s pain and suffering.

In making this determination, I have considered the mild-to-moderate nature of

Petitioner’s left shoulder pain and limited ROM, as well has her quick recovery and good

prognosis. Petitioner reported her pain promptly after vaccination, although the complaint

was secondary to her more immediate concern of a potential infection of a burn wound

she had sustained five days earlier. Petitioner’s first instant of seeking treatment

specifically for her left shoulder was on December 10, 2020, 41 days following

vaccination. Although Petitioner did report moments of severe pain (e.g., 8/10 at the

beginning of PT), the overall nature of her injury appears to have been more moderate

than the most extreme moment of pain (e.g., during an examination on December 22,

2020, Petitioner tested her strength with resisted motion testing, which was characterized

as “relatively pain-free.”) Ex. 3 at 40. She also consistently reported good results from her

two cortisone injections and her pain made a steady taper downward while engaged in

PT and home exercise. On her final PT examination on June 1, 2021, she only reported

7 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)).

9

slight pain when reaching overhead and no pain with rest. This was confirmed when she

reported to PA Hanavan on June 30, 2021, that she felt 98% better and only occasional

discomfort with reaching overhead or rotating her arm. Ex. 3 at 49.

The overall severity of the SIRVA in the instant case was not high enough to

warrant $78,000.00 in damages, as Petitioner has requested. However, Petitioner has

cited to several useful comparable cases, and upon review I find the instant case to be

most similar to Celuch and Hartman. The Celuch petitioner underwent 24 sessions of PT,

one cortisone injection, two MRIs, and was largely recovered approximately eight months

after the inciting vaccination. 2021 WL 2368137, at *4. She reported pain of 5/10 at her

initial medical evaluation, which increased to 7/10 at her initial PT evaluation. Id. Like Ms.

Trala, she experienced good results from a similar number of PT sessions, although that

other petitioner did require another cortisone injection following discharge from PT. Id.

The Celuch petitioner was awarded $70,000.00 for her pain and suffering.

Similarly, the Hartman petitioner sought treatment for her shoulder pain quickly

after vaccination (28 days), underwent 21 PT sessions, and was largely recovered in

approximately five months. 2022 WL 444456, at *4-5. Although Petitioner in the instant

case underwent two cortisone injections whereas that other individual refused offers for

such injections, the Hartman petitioner also underwent an MRI which revealed a torn

tendon and her treating doctors at least broached the subject of a possible surgery,

whereas Ms. Trala has not undergone an MRI and never considered surgery on her

shoulder. The Hartman petitioner’s lingering symptoms also have been described as

worse than Ms. Trala’s, and that individual described a more significant impact on her

personal life due to her SIRVA. Id. Ultimately, while the duration of the Hartman

petitioner’s formal treatment was less than the instant case, the underlying injury appears

slightly more severe, and that individual was ultimately awarded $75,000.00 for her pain

and suffering.

Miller and Bergstrom, each of which awarded $80,000.00 for pain and suffering,

present notably more severe injuries than the instant case. For example, the Miller

petitioner initially described pain of 7-10/10, and underwent 24 PT sessions and 2

cortisone injections over a period of approximately ten months. 2023 WL 4312920, at *5.

However, that individual’s symptoms continued in a mild form for an additional six months

before she made a full recovery. Id. And the Bergstrom petitioner’s course of injury was

longer (albeit with several delays), with an initial delay of three months before seeking

treatment, a gap of six months following a cortisone injection, returned pain which was

treated with a second injection, and with pain rated at 5/10 at best and 10/10 at worst,

indicating constant moderate-to-severe pain, worse than what Petitioner has described in

the instant case. 2021 WL 5754968, at *7-8.

10

Respondent’s cited case, Berberich, presents a less-severe injury than the instant

case. Although that petitioner reported his injury quickly, he described pain of only 2/10

at that time and received a steroid injection. 2021 WL 4823551, at *3. Ultimately, the

Berberich petitioner experienced peak pain of 5/10, and only underwent 2 PT sessions

before he described his pain as 0/10 at rest and 3/10 intermittently with activity nine

months post vaccination. Id. at 7. That claimant was ultimately awarded pain and suffering

damages of $60,000.00, but the record reflects a more severe injury suffered by Ms.

Trala, and therefore she should receive a larger amount.

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 $71,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate

amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering. 8

Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner

a lump sum payment of $71,000.00, representing compensation for her 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.

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. 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.

11