# Taylor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

> United States Court of Federal Claims · February 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11269759

## Case

- **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims
- **Decided:** February 27, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Brian H. Corcoran
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11269759

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a special master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and contemporaneous medical records

## Opinion text

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1098V

JOANNE S. TAYLOR, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: January 28, 2026
v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Ramon Rodriguez, III, Siri & Glimstad LLP, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.

Adam Nemeth Muffett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On August 26, 2022, Joanne S. Taylor 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on January 6,

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).
2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
The parties were unable to settle the claim, and have now fully briefed entitlement
and damages (ECF Nos. 54, 55, 57). For the reasons set forth herein, I find that
Petitioner’s shoulder pain likely began within 48 hours of vaccination, and she is entitled
to compensation otherwise. For damages, I award $110,000.00 for actual pain and
suffering, plus $403.43 for past unreimbursable expenses.

I. Factual Evidence
A. Medical Records
Petitioner received a flu vaccine in her left deltoid on January 6, 2020, during a
follow up appointment with her primary care provider (“PCP”) for a chronic condition. Ex.
13 at 112, 124. Two months later (March 11, 2020), she saw an unrelated specialist, with
whom she discussed medication. Ex. 8 at 279. She did not mention shoulder pain.
Three months after vaccination (April 5, 2020), Petitioner sent a message to her
PCP about several health concerns. Ex. 36 at 3. She now reported that her “[l]eft shoulder
[was] very sore. The injection site for my flu shot is still very sore and painful.” Id.
The following month, Petitioner saw orthopedist Dr. Irfan Ansari for left shoulder
pain. Ex. 3 at 30. She explained that the pain “[s]tarted after a flu shot back in February,”
– misstating the month of vaccination – and she now had loss of motion and strength. Id.
She had taken ibuprofen intermittently, but the pain was not improving. Id. Her pain
ranged between three and five out of ten, and was worse with activity, occasionally waking
her from sleep. Id. On examination, Petitioner exhibited mildly limited range of motion
(“ROM”), with active forward elevation to 160-170 degrees, and mildly positive Neer and
Hawkins impingement signs. Id. Dr. Ansari assessed her with “[l]eft shoulder pain status
post injection, likely cuff tendinitis.” Id. He prescribed anti-inflammatory medication and
recommended physical therapy (“PT”). Id.
Petitioner underwent a PT evaluation of her left shoulder on June 10, 2020. Ex. 12
at 42. The evaluation record lists an onset date of February 1, 2020, explaining that the
“[m]echanism of onset is increasing pain and stiffness in L shoulder following flu shot in
February 2020. Pt reports pain began at site of injection and gradually moved up to
shoulder.” Id. Petitioner rated her pain two to three out of ten at rest, rising to six out of
ten with use. Id. On examination, her left shoulder active ROM was 125 degrees in flexion
(compared to 180 degrees on the right), 95 degrees in abduction (compared to 170
degrees on the right), and 45 degrees in external rotation (compared to 70 degrees on
the right), with slightly reduced ROM in extension and internal rotation as well. Id. at 43-
44. Petitioner attended a total of 12 PT sessions between June 10 and September 3,

2
2020. Id. at 42-85. During this time, her pain generally ranged between two to four out of
ten, sometimes rising to six out of ten with use. Id.
On June 22, 2020, Petitioner messaged her PCP, stating that she “wanted to
discuss what’s happened with my left shoulder since my flu shot,” stating that she
expected he had received a report from Dr. Ansari. Ex. 36 at 6. Her PCP responded that
he had reviewed Dr. Ansari’s note, and had “seen cases in which reaction to the flu shot
injected into the muscle of the shoulder can cause muscle inflammation/tendinitis.” Id.
The next day, Petitioner saw her PCP via telemedicine for an annual examination.
Ex. 13 at 67. The record of this visit does not mention shoulder pain.
On August 13, 2020, Petitioner saw physician assistant (“PA”) Jason Grabrovac in
Dr. Ansari’s office for reevaluation of her left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 26. The record notes that
Petitioner “was seen several months ago for left shoulder pain following a flu shot in
January.” Id. at 28. Petitioner reported that the pain was not improving, and the medication
Dr. Ansari prescribed upset her stomach so she was now using ibuprofen. Id. She had
noticed improvement in her pain with PT, but still had significant pain sleeping on her
shoulder at night and with shoulder elevation. Id. On examination, her ROM remained
limited, with positive impingement signs. Id. Because anti-inflammatory medication and
PT had not resulted in significant improvement, PA Grabrovac ordered an MRI. Id.
Petitioner’s left shoulder MRI showed rotator cuff tendinosis with a partial tear of
the supraspinatus tendon, moderate to severe acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, a small
glenohumeral joint effusion, and mild subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis. Ex. 3 at 42.
Petitioner returned to PA Grabrovac on September 3, 2020 to review the MRI. Ex.
3 at 24. Petitioner’s pain was somewhat better from PT but nevertheless persisted,
particularly with external rotation. Id. at 26. PA Grabrovac and Petitioner discussed
treatment options, including continued PT, cortisone injection, and surgery. Id. Petitioner
stated she would call the office when she decided on her treatment.
Two months later (November 12, 2020), Petitioner messaged her PCP stating that
she had “experienced shoulder pain since Feb 2020 when a flu vaccine shot was
administered in your office.” Ex. 36 at 8. She noted that her orthopedist had diagnosed
her with SIRVA, and that she could still feel pain at the injection site, had lost full ROM,
and was unable to golf. Id.
Four months later (March 29, 2021), Petitioner saw PA Grabrovac for a pre-
operative evaluation for upcoming shoulder surgery. Ex. 18 at 13. Petitioner underwent
left shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and subacromial decompression on April 7,
2021. Id. at 12. Her post-operative diagnoses were left shoulder rotator cuff tear and left
shoulder impingement. Id.

3
Petitioner saw PA Grabrovac for a post-operative follow up on April 14, 2021. Ex.
18 at 7. She was doing well, with no complaints. Id. at 9. Examination revealed no signs
of infection, and sutures were removed. Id. She was referred for PT. Id.
Petitioner underwent a PT evaluation of her left shoulder on April 26, 2021. Ex. 28
at 85. Petitioner stated that her symptoms had begun “last January following a flu shot,”
and she had now undergone surgery. Id. at 87. She told the therapist that the surgeon
had “cleaned up [her] tendons and removed a bone spur.” Id. Petitioner was wearing a
sling, and reported minimal pain that she rated two out of ten, ranging from zero at best
to four out of ten at worst. Id. On examination, her ROM and strength were impaired. Id.
at 88. Petitioner attended 21 PT sessions between April 26 and August 3, 2021. Ex. 28
at 2-92. During this time, on two occasions her pain spiked to six out of ten; the remainder
of the time, it ranged between zero and four out of ten. Id.
Petitioner followed up with Dr. Ansari on May 27, 2021. Ex. 18 at 5. She was doing
well, with minimal pain. Id. at 7. Two months later (July 28, 2021), she saw PA Grabrovac.
Id. at 3. She was progressing well in PT. She still had some pain sleeping on her shoulder
at night, but it was improving. Id. at 5. He recommended continued PT. Id. They discussed
golfing, and he stated she could putt but should not drive a golf ball for another two
months. Id.
Petitioner was discharged from PT on August 3, 2021. Ex. 19 at 3. She rated her
pain one out of ten, and stated that her orthopedist had discharged her. Id. at 5. On
examination, she had full active ROM in all planes, with mild difficulty with abduction. Id.
at 6.
B. Testimonial Evidence
Petitioner filed two declarations in support of her claim.3 Exs. 1, 39. In her first
(signed July 26, 2022), she states that at the time she received the flu vaccine, she was
told that many people had complained of injection site pain after vaccination that year.
Ex. 1 at 1. Therefore, when she experienced pain immediately after vaccination, which
worsened within two days, she was not initially concerned. Id. However, soon her upper
arm and shoulder became so painful that she lost ROM and could not move her arm in
certain directions without a lot of pain. Id. She could not sleep on her left side or reach
into a cabinet for a dish without pain. Id. at 1-2. Because it was the beginning of the
COVID-19 outbreak, she was initially reluctant to see a doctor. Id. at 2.
By May 2020, Petitioner decided to seek care from an orthopedist. Ex. 1 at 2. She
had missed a lot of her women’s golf league by this time, and remained unable to play for

3 Although Petitioner labeled Exhibit 1 and 39, as well as the remaining testimonial statements, as affidavits,

they are not notarized. Nonetheless, they are acceptable as declarations sworn under penalty of perjury.
28 U.S.C. § 1746.

4
the rest of the year. Id. Her husband is disabled from an above-knee amputation, and her
shoulder pain limited the care she was able to provide, leading him to assume some of
her usual duties. Id. He was not able to fully take over cooking, resulting in increasing
reliance on takeout and delivery of meals. Id.
PT helped with Petitioner’s pain and flexibility, but she remained unable to resume
all normal activities, including golf. Ex. 1 at 2-3. She could only drive a car for short
distances. Id. at 3. After her MRI confirmed a partial thickness rotator cuff tear, she was
given treatment options, including surgery. Id. She was reluctant to undergo surgery
because COVID-19 was still “a significant threat” and medical facilities were
overwhelmed. Id. She did her PT exercises at home, but continued to experience pain
and limited ROM. Id. She did not think she would be able to golf again without surgery.
Id. Therefore, she underwent surgery in April 2021. Id.
Petitioner describes an “extremely painful recovery of at least 6 weeks” before she
could start working to regain full use of her arm. Ex. 1 at 3. Recovery took about six
months, leading her to miss another season of her women’s golf league. Id. at 4. While
surgery restored the use of her arm and resulted in a nearly complete recovery, the timing
“significantly disrupted my normally very active life.” Id. She has been able to resume
most activities, but still has residual intermittent pain in her left shoulder with certain
movements. Id.
Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration that she signed on September 25, 2024.
Ex. 39. She now states that she called her doctor on January 10th “to tell him of the pain
I was experiencing,” and was told that sometimes the vaccine can “leak” to nearby
muscles and that probably explained her experience. Id. at 1-2. This occurred during a
time of deep grief for Petitioner; she received the at-issue vaccine two days before the
anniversary of the death of her oldest son. Id. at 2. She explains that the time around any
anniversaries tends to be the worst. Id.
Petitioner explains that weeks went by with her pain escalating, and she soon lost
ROM. Ex. 39 at 2. She was unable to see a doctor due to the outbreak of the COVID-19
Pandemic; her doctor’s office was not seeing patients in person. Id. As a city council
member, she was “privy to the rapidly developing Covid pandemic crisis so was hyper-
aware of the unknown challenges and dangers we would be facing.” Id. She was reluctant
to impose on the few medical resources in her rural community, in addition to being
concerned for her own health. Id. at 2-3.
As an elected official, Petitioner focused on how her community should respond to
the crisis, rather than her own pain. Ex. 39 at 3. She and her colleagues needed to advise
the public on how to protect themselves, determine how to protect city staff who were
required to continue working, and work through how to proceed until state law was
changed to allow official meetings to take place remotely. Id. at 3-4. Although her shoulder

5
pain had steadily escalated since vaccination and concerned her, in the context of the
Pandemic, it “was not the first thing on my mind.” Id.
Petitioner acknowledges that some of her records note an incorrect vaccination
date, explaining that “[i]t is entirely possible with all the turmoil that was going on in my
life then with the worsening pandemic, the time that had passed since my vaccinations
and the recollections of my son’s death, that I misremembered the month I was vaccinated
and told a provider I was vaccinated in February as opposed to January 2020.” Id. at 5.
However, she is “absolutely certain and there is no doubt in my mind that the pain in my
left shoulder started immediately following my receipt of the flu vaccination” and “there
was no delay in pain onset.” Id.
Petitioner states that although she has recovered and been able to resume many
of her former activities, she continues to have lingering issues. Ex. 39 at 6-7. If she turns
onto her left side while sleeping, she awakens in pain. Id. Her golf game has declined,
and she sometimes experiences shoulder pain after golfing. Id. at. 7. She continues to
have difficulty lifting her husband’s wheelchair into the car without help. Id.
Petitioner’s husband submitted a declaration in support of her claim. Ex. 2. He
states that when Petitioner came home after receiving the at-issue vaccine, she
commented on how much it hurt and where the shot was given, pointing to the outer edge
of her triceps muscle where there is not much muscle. Id. at 1. After a few days, Petitioner
told him the spot was still painful and was getting hard. Id. After a few weeks, she told
him it was not getting better, and it was difficult even to raise her left arm due to pain. Id.
She experienced difficulty driving and cooking, and missed two complete seasons of golf.
Id. at 2.
Petitioner’s husband explains that he had an above-knee amputation 20 years ago
and has had serious pain issues for decades. Ex. 2 at 2. Because of Petitioner’s injury,
he had to take over many of her former household activities, including laundry and
shopping. Id. at 2-3. He also took over a lot of the driving and cooking and they greatly
increased eating takeout or having food delivered. Id. at 3. Petitioner does yoga, and he
has observed her having difficulty with even simple poses. Id.
Petitioner’s son and daughter in law filed declarations in support of her claim. Exs.
37, 38. Petitioner’s son recalls a visit to Petitioner on March 1, 2020 when he and his wife
did a lot of the cooking and cleaning – which Petitioner normally would not permit as she
rarely, if ever, asks for help in the kitchen. Ex. 37 at 1. For this reason, he was surprised
that she didn’t protest when he asked her to sit down and let him do things. Id. She
mentioned that her left shoulder was bothering her at that time, and had been since her
January 2020 vaccination. Id.
Petitioner’s daughter in law explains that her visit to Petitioner’s home on March 1,
2020 occurred before she married Petitioner’s son, and was the first time she had been

6
to their home. Ex. 38 at 1. Before their visit, Petitioner’s son had said that his mom was a
bit of a gourmet chef and had difficulty accepting help in the kitchen. Id. To her surprise,
Petitioner allowed them to finish cooking and cleaning. Id.
Petitioner’s daughter in law recalls Petitioner talking about her vaccination “a few
months earlier” and the resulting pain. Ex. 38 at 1. She adds that she now knows
Petitioner better, and she is very independent and “the fact that she accepted help in the
kitchen at that time tells me she was in a lot of pain.” Id. at 2.
Sam Norton, a former mayor who worked with Petitioner, submitted a declaration
in support of her claim. Ex. 40. He recalls Petitioner telling him in mid-January 2020 of
worsening left upper arm pain that started after her vaccination earlier that month. Id. at
1.
II. Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
preponderantly demonstrate all matters required under Section 11(c)(1), including the
factual circumstances surrounding his or her 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 & Human 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). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration
as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health
professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper
treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are
also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health &
Human 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 & Human Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90–2808V,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The Federal Circuit has
“reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete
as to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997
F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that a patient may not report every ailment,

7
or a physician may enter information incorrectly or not record everything he or she
observes).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received and the lack of
other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must establish that he or 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 he or she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The Vaccine
Act further includes a “severity requirement,” pursuant to which a petitioner demonstrate
that they “suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury,
or condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine . . . .” Section
11(c)(1)(D).
“[T]he fact that a Petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013, 2019 WL 978825, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (“a discharge
from medical care does not necessarily indicate there are no residual effects”). “A
treatment gap . . . does not automatically mean severity cannot be established.” Law v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0699V, 2023 WL 2641502, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 23, 2023) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for
under three months and had met physical therapy goals but still lacked full range of motion
and experienced difficulty with certain activities, then returned to care nearly five months
later reporting stiffness and continuing restrictions in motion); see also Peeples v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0634V, 2022 WL 2387749 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
26, 2022) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for four months,
followed by fifteen-month gap); Silvestri v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-
1045V, 2021 WL 4205313 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 16, 2021) (finding severity
requirement satisfied where Petitioner did not seek additional treatment after the five-
month mark).
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 Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) are as follows:

4 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 and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his or her injury. Section
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(E).

8
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).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
B. Parties’ Arguments on Entitlement
Petitioner asserts that her left shoulder pain began when she received the flu
vaccine on January 6, 2020, then progressed over the next 48 hours and continued to
worsen thereafter. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record, filed Oct. 10, 2024, at
*16-19 (ECF No. 54) (“Mot.”). She asserts that she called her PCP four days after
vaccination about her pain and was told the vaccine may have leaked to nearby muscles,

9
explaining her pain. Id. at *16. She adds that at the time this occurred, she was dealing
with personal grief and the early days of the Pandemic – and as a city council member,
she was involved in the community response. Id. Thus, she tried to work through the pain.
Id.
Petitioner argues that when she sought care in May 2020, her orthopedist
attributed her symptoms to vaccination. Mot. at *18. Although Petitioner at times
misstated that she received the flu vaccine in February 2020, she consistently maintained
that her shoulder pain occurred contemporaneously with vaccination.5 Id.
Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot prevail on a Table SIRVA claim because
she has not demonstrated that her shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination.
Respondent’s Response, filed Dec. 10, 2024, at *12-16 (ECF No. 55) (“Resp.”).
Respondent emphasizes that Petitioner did not complain of shoulder pain until three
months after vaccination, and was not seen for it until over four months after vaccination.
Id. at *12. And even then, she did not specify when her shoulder pain began, or stated
that it began in February – which would place onset well outside of a 48-hour timeframe.
Id. Even records that relate her pain to vaccination are vague as to how long after
vaccination. Id.
Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s testimonial evidence alleging that she
delayed care due to the Pandemic. Resp. at *14. However, Respondent points out that
the wide-scale outbreak and corresponding stay-at-home orders did not occur until March
2020 – after Petitioner already had a significant window of time to see a provider – which
she did, for a different concern, on March 11, 2020. Id.
Respondent raises concerns about the inconsistency between Petitioner’s first
declaration and supplemental declaration. Respondent highlights Petitioner’s statement
in her supplemental declaration that she called her PCP on January 10, 2020, and
observes that in her initial declaration Petitioner did not mention this and instead stated
that she was not concerned about her shoulder pain in the weeks after vaccination. Resp.
at *15. Thus, her initial declaration states that she was not concerned about her shoulder
pain, yet her supplemental declaration states that she was concerned enough to call her
PCP four days after vaccination. Id. Respondent adds that the supplemental declaration
was prepared after the Rule 4(c) Report, and clearly made for litigation purposes. Id.

5
Petitioner reiterates her request for a hearing concerning onset and other aspects of her claim. Mot. at *12
n. 2. A hearing is not needed or warranted, however. “[A] special master has discretion whether or not to
conduct an evidentiary hearing before deciding a case.” Hooker v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
02-472V, 2016 WL 3456435, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 19, 2016) (noting that section 12(d)(2)(D) of
the Vaccine Act encourages special masters to decide cases without routine use of oral presentations,
cross examination, or hearings, and that the Vaccine Rules allow a special master to decide a case on the
record without a hearing); see also Hovey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 397 (1997),
appeal dismissed, 135 F.3d 773 (ruling that special master acted within his discretion in denying hearing).

10
Petitioner replies that she consistently attributed her left shoulder pain to
vaccination. Petitioner’s Reply, filed Jan. 10, 2025, at *2 (ECF No. 57) (“Reply”). She cites
Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998), for the
proposition that testimony given later in time may outweigh medical records if it is
consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling. Reply at *2-3. And the Vaccine Act expressly
allows a special master to find that onset occurred within the time set forth in the Table
even though the occurrence of symptoms was not recorded or was incorrectly recorded.
Id. at *3. Petitioner asserts that the medical records, bolstered by witness statements,
support a finding that her pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. at *4-6.
C. Factual Findings on Onset
The record supports a finding that Petitioner’s shoulder pain likely began within 48
hours of vaccination.
Petitioner first reported her shoulder pain to her PCP three months after
vaccination, stating that the injection site from her vaccination was “still very sore and
painful” – suggesting that her pain had persisted since that time. Ex. 36 at 3 (emphasis
added). The next month, now four and a half months after vaccination, she told her
orthopedist that her pain started after her vaccination – although she referred to that
vaccination taking place in February rather than January. Ex. 3 at 30. Her orthopedist’s
assessment connected her shoulder pain to vaccination.
Similarly, Petitioner told her physical therapist that her pain began after vaccination
in February, with her pain beginning at the injection site and moving up to her shoulder.
Ex. 12 at 42 (emphasis added). In June 2020, she messaged her PCP about “what’s
happened with my left shoulder since my flu shot.” Ex. 36 at 3. In August 2020, PA
Grabrovac noted that her pain started “following a flu shot in January.” Ex. 3 at 28. In
November 2020, 11 months after vaccination, Petitioner messaged her PCP about
shoulder pain that she had experienced since vaccination, although she again misstated
vaccination as having occurred in February. Ex. 36 at 8. And Petitioner has provided
testimonial evidence that supports these records.
I acknowledge that on multiple occasions Petitioner described her shoulder pain
as beginning in February. However, on each such occasion she also stated that her pain
started after vaccination. With this context, I find that Petitioner was likely describing pain
that began after vaccination, but mistakenly recalled the month in which the vaccine was
administered.
I acknowledge Respondent’s concern about the incongruity between Petitioner’s
initial declaration and supplemental declaration. In her initial declaration, Petitioner states
she was not initially concerned about her pain because at the time of vaccination, her
PCP told her that other people had complained of pain after vaccination that year, but her
later declaration states she was concerned enough to call her PCP about the pain. This

11
apparent inconsistency could be attributable to the passage of time after the events in
question, and reduces the evidentiary value of the declarations. Certainly it calls into
question onset (although the first official complaint of shoulder pain, from the April 2020
medical visit, is consistent with Table onset). Nonetheless, the medical record evidence
is sufficient to support a finding that Petitioner’s shoulder pain likely began within 48 hours
of vaccination.
D. Factual Findings on Remaining SIRVA QAI Criteria and Statutory
Requirements
The remaining QAI and statutory requirements are not disputed, and I find that
they are satisfied. The record does not contain preponderant evidence that Petitioner had
a history of left shoulder pain or any other condition that would explain her post-
vaccination symptoms. Ex. 13 at 117, 144-45; 188-89. She exhibited reduced ROM, and
her pain and ROM limitations were limited to the vaccinated shoulder. Exs. 3 at 30; Ex.
12 at 43-44. She received a covered vaccine in the United States. Ex. 13 at 124. She
experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Ex. 3 at 26-28. And
she states that a civil action has never been filed by anyone against a vaccine
manufacturer or administrator for vaccine related injuries on her behalf, and no one has
collected awards of settlements from them for these injuries. Ex. 20.
Petitioner has established by preponderant evidence that all Table SIRVA and QAI
requirements are established. Further, she has established all statutory requirements for
entitlement. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
III. Damages
A. Legal Standard
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 discussion in Section II of Matthews v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 22-1396V, 2025 WL 2606607 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 13,
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 $250,000.00.” 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 & Human 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

12
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering.6
B. Parties’ Damages Arguments
Petitioner seeks a pain and suffering award in the amount of $150,000.00, citing
decisions in Blanco, Wilson, Anglewicz, and Reed, in which the claimants were awarded
$135,000.00, $130,000.00, $130,000.00, and $160,000.00, respectively. 7 Mot. at *22-29.
Petitioner asserts that her shoulder pain “was significant at the outset,” though she
does not cite supporting records. Mot. at *22. She characterizes her medical course and
sequela as falling in the moderate range of severity because she underwent surgical
intervention and “extensive physical therapy interventions before and after” surgery. Id.
at *24. Petitioner states that her injury duration was approximately 20 months, after which
she experienced “a near return to her pre-vaccination baseline level of functioning. with
only intermittent pain in the left shoulder with certain movements.” Id. at *25.
Petitioner asks that I consider the impact her injury had on her quality of life. Mot.
at *26. Prior to vaccination, Petitioner was active in her community and in local politics as
a member of city council. Id. She participated in golf and yoga, cooked, handled
household chores, served as a mentor in the school system, worked at a homeless
shelter, and traveled. Id. After her injury, her work as a city council member “became
difficult because of the pain she was experiencing, and she was no longer able to engage
in any of her leisure activities.” Id. She had difficulty sleeping, cooking, dressing, and
driving a car. Id.
Petitioner asserts that her injury is similar to Blanco (other than the Blanco
petitioner’s injury lasting about four months longer, with multiple steroid injections and
additional imaging, but attending less PT). Mot. at *27. And Ms. Taylor states that her
injury duration was longer, with more PT, than the Wilson claimant. Id. at *27-28. She
views her injury as similar to that in Anglewicz, and acknowledges that the Reed
petitioner’s injury persisted for longer and treatment included a steroid injection, but less
PT. Id. at *28.

6 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May

14, 2013) (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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)).

7 Blanco v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.18-1361V, 2020 WL 4523473 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr July 6,

2020); Wilson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0035V, 2021 WL 1530731 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr
Mar. 18, 2021); Anglewicz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-1504V, 2024 WL 2702415 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Feb. 8, 2024); and Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1670V, 2019 WL 1222925
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2019).

13
Respondent proposes a pain and suffering award of $57,500.00, relying on Hunt
($95,000.00 pain and suffering award) and Shelton ($97,500.00 pain and suffering
award), and maintaining that Petitioner should be awarded less than the petitioners in
those cases.8 Resp. at *22-28.
Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s injury is a “unique surgical case” for three
reasons: she delayed reporting her injury for three months, had treatment gaps, and
consistently reported low pain ratings. Resp. at *20. As such, he views an award of
$57,500.00 as “consistent with awards in other cases of that nature.” Id.
Respondent asserts that the cases Petitioner relies on all involve more severe
injuries, and thus are not good comparables. Resp. at *23-24. The Blanco petitioner
reported her injury less than a month after vaccination, and underwent four steroid
injections in addition to surgery and PT. Id. at *24. Additionally, the Blanco petitioner
reported severe pain and her injury duration was four months longer than Ms. Taylor’s.
Id. The Wilson petitioner also reported her injury one month after vaccination, and
suffered a “moderately severe” injury. Id.
Respondent notes that the Anglewicz petitioner underwent two steroid injections
in addition to surgery. Resp. at *25. And the Reed petitioner reported shoulder pain just
11 days after vaccination, treated with medications, a steroid injection, and surgery, and
did not make a good recovery after surgery, continuing to treat with medication and PT
and complain of worsening shoulder pain over two years after vaccination. Id.
Respondent views decisions in Hunt and Shelton as instructive, though he views
Ms. Taylor’s injury as less severe than either of those cases. Resp. at *26. Respondent
emphasizes that Petitioner consistently reported low pain ratings. Id. at *26-27. Moreover,
there is a six-month gap in treatment between her last PT session prior to surgery in
September 2020 and her preoperative evaluation in March 2021. Id. at *27. Petitioner
messaged her PCP once about her shoulder during this gap, and sought other health
care, but did not treat her shoulder injury. Id.
Petitioner disagrees that her case is unique, and asserts that neither Hunt nor
Shelton should be considered useful comparables because both are “outliers,” rare
instances of surgical cases involving awards of less than $100,000.00. Reply at *9-10
(citing Double v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0682V, 2024 WL 3648398, at
*4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 27, 2024) (“Hunt and Shelton are not useful comparables
for this matter . . . both stand as ‘outlier determinations, and rare instances of deviating
from the above $100,000.00 ‘norm’ for SIRVA cases involving surgery’”)). Petitioner
asserts that her case is not an outlier like those cases, and adds that Respondent’s

8 Hunt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.19-1003V, 2022 WL 2826662 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr June 16,

2022); Shelton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.19-279V, 2021 WL 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
May 21, 2021).

14
proposed award is $37,500.00 to $40,000.00 less than the awards in those cases. Id. at
*11. The Hunt petitioner had several periods of time where she was pain-free, unlike Ms.
Taylor, who still had a pain level of one out of ten even after surgery and post-operative
PT. Id. at *11-12. The Shelton petitioner’s initial treatment delay was almost five months,
and that petitioner attended less PT and was pain-free at discharge. Id. at 13. And neither
the Hunt petitioner nor the Shelton petitioner had to contend with delays or concerns
surrounding the Pandemic. Id.
Petitioner does not consider cortisone injections a useful indicator of injury
severity, asserting that her orthopedist only offered that treatment as a non-surgical
option, but otherwise recommended surgery. Reply at *12. Petitioner asserts that “[l]ogic
dictates that the orthopedic specialist recommended surgery because petitioner’s
symptoms were sufficiently severe to warrant surgical intervention.” Id.
C. 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.
I find that Petitioner suffered an injury that largely resolved within 19 months, with
some initial treatment delay, and overall was relatively mild in the context of injuries
involving surgery. She did not seek care until over four months after vaccination, and
stopped treatment for a six-month period of time. She treated with surgery and PT, and
had a good recovery after completing post-operative PT. On a few occasions, she stated
that with use her pain rose to six out of ten, but otherwise generally reported low pain
levels throughout her treatment course.
The cases Petitioner cites involve injuries more severe than hers. 9 Of those, the
closest are Blanco and Wilson – but both involve petitioners who sought care much
sooner, underwent significant surgical procedures,10 and whose injuries persisted for
longer. The decision in Anglewicz suggests that it is an outlier, in that the pain and
suffering award takes into account the impact of the claimant’s injury on her ability to
work. Anglewicz, 2024 WL 2702415, at *3. And although I have described Hunt and

9 I decline to adopt Petitioner’s suggestion that I treat her claim as comparable to those involving claimants

who underwent cortisone injections in addition to surgery; while Ms. Taylor underwent surgery but did not
receive cortisone injections.

10 The Blanco petitioner’s surgery was described as “significant”: a left shoulder arthroscopic subacromial

decompression, arthroscopic biceps tenotomy with glenohumeral debridement,, and arthroscopic rotator
cuff repair. Blanco, 2020 WL 4523473, at *3. The Wilson petitioner underwent “shoulder arthroscopy with
lysis and resection of adhesions, and extensive glenohumeral debridement.” Wilson, 2021 WL 1530731, at
*3.

15
Shelton as outliers, Ms. Taylor’s case bears many similarities to Shelton in particular, with
Ms. Taylor having sought care sooner than the Shelton petitioner, but the Shelton
petitioner receiving three steroid injections, compared to none for Ms. Taylor.
Taking these factors into consideration, I find that an award of $110,000.00 for pain
and suffering is appropriate in this case.

Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I GRANT Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record, and find that
Petitioner suffered an injury that meets the definition for a Table SIRVA and is
entitled to compensation. I find that $110,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.11 Additionally, I
find that Petitioner is entitled to $403.43 in unreimbursable expenses.12
Based on consideration of the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I
award Petitioner a lump sum of $110,403.43, 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). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

11 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 & Human Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

12 The parties agree that this sum is reimbursable. Reply at *7; Respondent’s Status Report, ECF No. 60,

at *1.

13 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.

16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11269759. Public record. Not legal advice.