The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-0503V
KATHRYN T. WARD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 11, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1
On May 6, 2022, Kathryn T. Ward 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”) following an influenza vaccination she received on September
27, 2019. Petition at ¶2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters. Because the parties could not informally resolve the issue of
damages, they were ordered to file briefs setting forth their respective arguments and
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).
were notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing,
which ultimately took place on February 11, 2026.
Petitioner seeks an award of $80,000.00 in compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering. Respondent recommends an award of $47,500.00. 3
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on damages
constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A),
at the conclusion of the February 11, 2026 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. As discussed
during my oral ruling, 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 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) 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 decision awarding damages herein.
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that $75,000.00
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering. 4 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to $607.27 in actual
unreimbursable expenses.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $75,607.27, to be paid
through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation at ¶8. This amount represents compensation for
all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
3
Respondent did not provide a specific proposed figure in his briefing, but proposed $47,500.00 at the
oral hearing.
4 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)).
2
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
5 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.
3