In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1556V

UNPUBLISHED

SHARYN HALL,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: May 6, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Decision Awarding Damages; Pain 

and Suffering; Influenza (Flu) 

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

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

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 7, 2019, Sharyn Hall 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 the Table claim that she suffered was a Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine

received on October 5, 2017. Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1, 4. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Although 

Respondent conceded entitlement in this case, the parties could not agree on damages, 

so the disputed issues were submitted to an SPU Motions Day hearing on April 29, 2022.

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it 

on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 

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).
2

For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to $110,000.00,

for her actual pain and suffering, plus $5,232.74 representing Petitioner’s unreimbursed 

expenses.

I. Procedural Overview 

As noted above, the case was initiated in October 2019. On April 30, 2021, 

Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report in which he conceded that Petitioner was entitled to 

compensation in this case. ECF No. 32. Accordingly, on May 7, 2021, a ruling on 

entitlement issued finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA injury. ECF 

No. 34.

The parties were subsequently unable to informally resolve the issue of damages,

so a briefing schedule was set on November 24, 2021. ECF No. 42. Petitioner filed her

brief on January 11, 2022, requesting that I award her $145,000.00 in compensation -

representing her past/actual pain and suffering. ECF No. 45. Conversely, in a brief filed 

on March 14, 2022, Respondent argued that Petitioner should be awarded only 

$75,000.00 for past pain and suffering. ECF No. 46. Petitioner filed a Reply brief on March 

25, 2022. ECF No. 48. The parties have otherwise agreed upon an award of $5,232.74

representing Petitioner’s unreimbursed expenses, so that amount will be awarded as well.

ECF No. 48 at 1.

In March of this year, I informed the parties that this case was appropriate for an 

expedited hearing and ruling via my “Motions Day” practice, at which time I would decide 

the disputed damages issues based on all evidence filed to date plus whatever oral 

argument they wanted to make. ECF No. 47. The parties agreed, and the hearing took 

place on April 29, 2022. Minute Entry dated April 29, 2022.

3 I orally ruled on Petitioner’s 

damages at that time, and this Decision memorializes my determination.

II. Pain and Suffering 

A. Legal Standard and Prior SIRVA Pain and Suffering Awards

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 II and III of Winkle v. Sec’y 

Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0485V, 2022 WL 221643, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 

11, 2022).

3 Jessica Olins appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and Jamica Littles appeared on behalf of Respondent.

The transcript of the April 29, 2022 Hearing in this case was not filed as of the date of this Decision, but my 

oral ruling is incorporated by reference herein. 
3

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.4

B. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering

In this case, Ms. Hall’s awareness of the injury is not disputed, leaving only the 

severity and duration of that injury to be considered. 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,

affidavits, filings, and all assertions made by the parties in written documents and at the 

expedited hearing held on April 29, 2022. 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. 

I find that $110,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation 

for Petitioner’s past pain and suffering. The record establishes that Petitioner’s shoulder 

pain was initially fairly severe, prompting her to raise a concern with her primary care 

provider only 11 days after her vaccination on October 16, 2017. Ex. 4 at 11. Petitioner’s 

left shoulder pain persisted, and by November 14, 2017, she reported she was taking 

Aleve nightly due to left shoulder pain which had recently ranged from 5-8/10. Id. at 5.

Petitioner underwent a left shoulder MRI on November 16, 2017, Ex. 4 at 75, and received 

a steroid injection at an orthopedic appointment on November 20, 2017, at which time 

she reported pain in her left shoulder of 8/10. Ex. 7.1 at 38, 41. 

Throughout this time Petitioner was also suffering from and treating for longstanding right shoulder problems for which a surgical procedure was planned. On 

December 27, 2017, Petitioner’s orthopedist recommended she instead undergo left 

shoulder surgery, although both shoulders were noted to be symptomatic it was felt her 

left shoulder was worse than her right shoulder. Ex. 7.1 at 33-34.

4 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)).
4

Petitioner underwent left shoulder surgery on January 16, 2018 – a little more than 

three months after her vaccination. Petitioner’s surgery was complicated, requiring a 

second surgeon and consisting of three related sub-procedures: 1) An arthroscopically 

assisted rotator cuff repair; 2) An arthroscopic subacromial decompression; and 3) An

arthroscopic distal clavicle resection. Ex. 7.1 at 21. Petitioner’s post-surgical diagnoses 

included: 1) A rotator cuff tear; 2) Impingement; and 3) Acromioclavicular joint arthritis. 

Id.

However, subsequent to her surgery, Petitioner made an excellent recovery. While 

Petitioner described her left shoulder pain as 8/10 at worst on January 30, 2018, she 

reported her average pain level at that time was 2/10 – only two weeks after her surgery.

Ex. 7.1 at 10. Petitioner completed 16 total post-operative physical therapy sessions and 

was discharged on April 30, 2018. Ex. 7.1 at 10, 35, 51; Ex. 2 at 34. At her April 30, 2018 

discharge – not quite seven months after her October 5, 2017 flu vaccination – Petitioner 

reported her “overall condition improved as evidenced by her greater ability to sleep.” Ex. 

2 at 34. She exhibited improved range of motion, reported no pain with movement, 

exhibited no difficulty or limitations reaching overhead, and had only mild activity 

limitations. Id. Petitioner was found to have met her goals and was therefore discharged 

from further physical therapy. Id. at 35.

In sum, Petitioner was far “better” within approximately seven months of 

aggressive treatment, which included but was not limited to: 18 physical therapy

sessions5, one steroid injection6, a left shoulder MRI scan7, and surgical intervention.

8

While her pain levels were initially moderate to high, her reported pain was very low, 1-

3/10, by February 2018. Ex. 2 at 3, 34. And she sought no further medical treatment for 

her left shoulder after her April 30, 2018 discharge from physical therapy.

All of the above records factor into my determination. But I have also fully 

considered both the sworn affidavit, and later filed declaration, of Petitioner, which detail 

the limitations she experienced in work duties, family life, sleeping, and her exercise of 

5 Petitioner underwent a total of approximately 18 physical therapy sessions. See, e.g., Exs. 2, 7.1.

6 Petitioner received one steroid injection on November 20, 2017. Ex. 7.1 at 41.

7 Petitioner underwent a left shoulder MRI on November 16, 2017, with the following “Conclusion: 1) 

Acromioclavicular hypertrophic change and small subacromial osteophyte; 2) Partial-thickness to near full 

thickness tear to the supraspinatus and superior aspect of the infraspinatus. No evidence of retraction; 3) 

Subacromial subdeltoid bursitis; and 4) Degenerative change the labrum. There may be a small 

superimposed SLAP lesion.” Ex. 4 at 75.

8 Petitioner underwent left shoulder surgery on January 16, 2018. Ex. 7.1 at 21-23.
5

daily functions attributable to her shoulder injury. Exs. 8, 18. In addition, Petitioner details 

the difficultly she had assisting in the relocation of her mother-in-law to an assisted living 

in the beginning of 2018 due to her shoulder injury. Ex. 18, ¶¶ 3-4. Petitioner also indicates

that after she was released from physical therapy, she continued to experience pain, 

trouble sleeping, and restricted range of motion. Ex. 18, ¶ 6. She states that she joined a 

gym and continued her home exercises from more than a year. Ex. 18, ¶ 7. In her affidavit 

dated August 28, 2019, Petitioner indicated her shoulder limitations persisted, however 

by the time of her declaration dated January 22, 2022, she stated she was currently pain 

free. Ex. 8, ¶14; Ex. 18, ¶8. While I give credit and consideration to the suffering described

by Petitioner in her statements, I find that Petitioner was substantially recovered at her 

discharge from physical therapy as described above. 

Petitioner argues that her case is most comparable to three SIRVA decisions also 

involving surgical intervention, Wilson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0035V, 

2021 WL 1530731 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18, 2021) (awarding $130,000.00 for actual 

pain and suffering); Blanco v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-1361V, 2020 WL 

4523473 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 6, 2020) (awarding to be $135,000.00 for actual pain 

and suffering); and Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1670, 2019 WL 

1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2019) (awarding $160,000.00 for actual pain and 

suffering).9 Although these are reasonable comparables, they involve cases with more 

demonstrated severity, and ultimately I deem the sums awarded in them to exceed the 

pain and suffering demonstrated in this case.

Respondent – in contrast – offers two comparable cases to defend his proposed 

pain and suffering sum. See Bordelon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1892V, 

2019 WL 2385896 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 24, 2019) (awarding $75,000.00 for actual 

pain and suffering); Attig v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1029V, 2019 WL 

1749405 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 19, 2019) (awarding $75,000.00 for actual pain and 

suffering). But I also find these cases somewhat unhelpful in guiding the outcome herein,

as they did not involve injuries requiring surgical intervention (a factor that in most cases 

reasonably supports a higher award, all other things being equal).10 

9 Petitioner also cited to two other cases involving surgical intervention, Reynolds v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.

Servs., No. 19-1108V, 2021 WL 3913938 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2021) (awarding $125,000.00 for 

actual pain and suffering); and Rafferty v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1906V, 2020 WL 3495956 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2020) (awarding $127,500.00 for pain and suffering). These comparables 

were somewhat more in line with my ultimate determination.

10 Respondent also offered other cases, involving surgical intervention and higher awards of pain and 

suffering, as distinguishable from the instant case. ECF No. 46 at 12-14 (citing Selling v. Sec’y of Health & 

Hum. Servs, No. 16-588V, 2019 WL 3425224 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 2, 2019)(awarding $105,000.00 

for actual pain and suffering); Knudson v. Sec’y Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1004V, 2018 WL 6293381 

(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) (awarding $110,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Collado v. Sec’y 

Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0225V, 2018 WL 3433352 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 6, 2018) (awarding 
6

In considering comparable cases in order to ascertain a fair award in this case, I 

deem the best comparable to be Cates v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-0277V, 

2020 WL 3751072 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 5, 2020) (awarding $108,000.00 for actual 

pain and suffering).11 While there are some individual distinctions between the Cates

petitioner and Ms. Hall, both cases involved injuries that were initially relatively severe 

and required early surgical intervention, but which also both resulted in a good outcome 

only seven months after vaccination. Because the procedure in this case was more 

complex, an award somewhat higher than that allowed in Cates is appropriate.

III. Conclusion

Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons 

discussed in my oral ruling, I find that $110,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate 

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

Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $115, 232.74 (representing 

an award of $110,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $5,232.74 for Petitioner’s 

unreimbursed expenses) in the form of a check payable 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

$120,000.00 for actual pain and suffering); Dobbins v. Sec’y Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-0854V, 2018 

WL 4611267 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 15, 2018) (awarding $125,000.00 for actual pain and suffering).

11 Respondent also cited to the Cates decision in passing at oral argument, although Respondent did not 

point out that the award in that case greatly exceeded the sum he proposed. Rather, Respondent more 

fully discussed my award for pain and suffering in a different case, where (contrary to the majority of these 

cases) I awarded less than $100,000.00 for a case also involving shoulder surgery. Shelton v. Sec’y of 

Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0279V, 2021 WL 2550093 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 21, 2021) (awarding 

$97,500.00 for actual pain and suffering). However, the award in Shelton was mostly impacted by the 

petitioner’s significant delay in seeking medical treatment – a factor not present herein.