In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-1472V

Filed: June 27, 2019

PUBLISHED

ROBERT WALLACE

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Decision Awarding Damages; Pain 

and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On November 8, 2016, Robert Wallace (“petitioner”) 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 he suffered a left

shoulder injury as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 17, 

2015. Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned now finds 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount of $126,219.47.

 1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 

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, the 

undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such 

material from public access. Because this published decision contains a reasoned explanation for the 

action in this case, the undersigned is 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).

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

I. Procedural History

Petitioner filed his petition for compensation on November 8, 2016. On 

November 9, 2016, petitioner filed eight medical record exhibits and a Statement of 

Completion. (ECF Nos. 5 - 6). Subsequently, petitioner filed an affidavit, additional 

medical record exhibits and an amended Statement of Completion. (ECF Nos. 9, 15 -

16). On July 10, 2017, respondent filed his report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c) 

conceding that petitioner was entitled to compensation for a Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). (ECF No. 20). On July 11, 2017, the undersigned 

issued a ruling finding petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. (ECF No. 22). A 

damages order was issued on July 14, 2017. (ECF No. 23). 

On November 29, 2018, a status conference was held to discuss the parties’ 

progress resolving damages in this case. (ECF No. 53). The parties’ counsel reported 

at that conference that they were at an impasse in their informal discussions to resolve 

damages and would require a decision on damages from the undersigned. Id. A 

schedule for the filing of briefs and any additional evidence was agreed upon. Id. The 

parties have filed briefs discussing the damages issues in this case. This case is now 

ripe for a determination regarding petitioner’s pain and suffering, unreimbursed 

expenses, and award of damages.

II. Factual History

On October 17, 2015, Mr. Wallace (age 79) received a flu vaccine at CVS

Pharmacy. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 1 at 2. Petitioner’s prior medical history 

does not appear to be contributory to his claim. 

On December 1, 2015, petitioner was seen at the office of the Cleveland Clinic,

his primary care provider, for a complaint of loss of range of motion. Pet. Ex. 12 at 12. 

Renee Smith, CNP, noted that: 

Patient states that he received a flu shot from pharmacist at CVS on 

10/17/15. On the way to his car, he felt a electric pain in left upper arm. He 

called the pharmacist and was told that the symptoms should resolve [in] a 

few days. He applied [a] heating pad. In the past week, he has been unable 

to sleep on his left side and unable to raise his left arm. [Patient complains 

of] intermittent localized dull achy pain from left shoulder to elbow that 

becomes sharp with arm elevation - pain rated a 6 out of 10 on the analogue 

scale. His left fingers become numb and tingling at times. He states that his 

left arm is weak.

Pet. Ex. 12 at 3. On physical examination petitioner was found to have “left shoulder 

pain, painful movement, loss of ROM [range of motion] and injury” and referred to 

physical therapy. Id. at 3-4. Additionally, petitioner underwent an x-ray of his left 

shoulder that same date. “No acute abnormality in the left shoulder” was found. Id. at 

10.

Petitioner began physical therapy on December 8, 2015 at the Cleveland Clinic 

and reported as follows:
3

since the [flu] shot [patient] has received severe limitation in shoulder 

movement and lateral upper arm soreness. [Patient] also notes 

numbness/tingling which "comes and goes" which radiates to fingers and 

forearm. [Patient] states that he never had any problem in the past 

regarding L[eft] shoulder pain. Prior to getting [the] shot [patient] was 

working outside and raking leaves, [patient] was unable to return to this task 

later that day after he had received [the] flu shot. [Patient] is concerned due 

to only mild improvement in [symptoms] over the last 2 months. [Patient]

reports that he [has] not had a good night[] sleep since it happened. P[atient]

is R[ight] hand dominant.

Pet. Ex. 5 at 3. Petitioner reported a current pain level of 6/10 with arm movement and 

0/10 at rest.3 Id. On examination, petitioner was found to have moderate limitations of 

the left shoulder in abduction (135) and scaption (100) with pain. Id. at 4. A minimal 

limitation and pain was found with horizontal abduction of the left shoulder. Id. It was 

found that petitioner presented with a high disability (77%) of his shoulder pursuant to a 

Quick Dash evaluation. Id. at 5-6. Petitioner was recommended to engage in follow-up 

physical therapy appointments once to twice a week for one month. Id. at 6. 

Petitioner returned to his primary provider’s office on December 16, 2015 with 

continuing symptoms of pain in the left shoulder since his October 17, 2015 flu 

vaccination. Pet. Ex. 7 at 37. Petitioner reported that he felt physical therapy was not 

helpful and he could not fully raise his arm. Id. Sathya Reddy, MD, assessed 

petitioner as having a shoulder impingement syndrome and referred him to orthopedics. 

Id. at 38.

However, on December 17, 2015, petitioner was seen by his physical therapist 

for his third visit and reported “that his shoulder is getting better everyday and he 

awakened without pain [that] morning for the first time.” Pet. Ex. 11 at 7.

On December 29, 2015, petitioner was evaluated by Christopher Philips, PA-C 

with the orthopedics department at the Cleveland Clinic for left shoulder pain. Pet. Ex. 6 

at 3. Mr. Philips noted that petitioner had attended four structured physical therapy 

appointments and that his physical therapist reported improvements, however petitioner 

reported “therapy has not benefited me much.” Id. Petitioner was assessed with pain in 

left shoulder, left shoulder tendonitis, and left arm numbness. Id. at 6. Mr. Philips noted 

as follows:

Patient has pain out of proportion to his exam findings. He does have some 

mild tenderness over the left deltoid bursa however no tenderness to 

palpation of the supraspinatus or infraspinous tendons or the subacromial 

bursa. Impingement signs are negative. Patient is also having headaches 

and "tingling" radiating down the left upper extremity to the hand. This raises 

some concern for possible cervical radiculopathy which may be causing 

more of the symptoms.

Id. Petitioner was started on prednisone. Id. A cervical x-ray was ordered, id., which 

showed “mild disc space narrowing” of the lower cervical spine, but “no abnormal

subluxation [was] seen on flexion or extension.” Id. at 12.

 3 A “Worst Pain Level” of 10/10 and a “Best Pain Level” of 0/10 were also indicated. Pet. Ex. 5 at 3.
4

On December 31, 2015, petitioner was discharged from physical therapy 

reporting “that he is back at square one with the shoulder, citing that it is just as painful 

and it has ever been.” Pet. Ex. 5 at 11. Petitioner further reported that his “sleeping 

remains significantly impacted due to shoulder pain.” Id. However, petitioner did state 

that therapy helped and reported no current left shoulder pain, and pain with movement 

at 5/10.4 Id. On examination petitioner was found to have a moderate limitation with 

elevation, his scaption was 155 (his right shoulder scaption was 160), and his Quick 

Dash remained high at 77%. Id. Petitioner was recommended to continue a home 

exercise program and follow-up with orthopedics. Id. at 13. On January 5, 2016, 

petitioner was seen again by Mr. Philips for an orthopedic evaluation, wherein he 

reported “some mild improvement with prednisone” but continued limited range of 

motion. Pet. Ex. 6 at 15. Mr. Philips assessed petitioner with pain and left shoulder 

tendonitis and referred him for an MRI of the left shoulder. Id. at 18. 

An MRI examination was conducted on January 7, 2016 and Patricia Delzell, 

MD, noted the following impression: “moderate chronic subacromial subdeltoid bursitis;

rotator cuff tendinosis without full-thickness tear, retraction or muscle atrophy; [and a]

mildly complex labral tear, likely degenerative.” Id. at 28 (text reformatted from original). 

On January 11, 2016, petitioner was seen again by Mr. Philips for an orthopedic 

evaluation following his MRI. Id. at 25. Mr. Philips assessed petitioner with bursitis of 

the left shoulder, acromioclavicular joint arthritis, left shoulder tendonitis, left shoulder 

impingement, and a degenerative tear of the glenoid labrum of his left shoulder. Id. at 

29. Petitioner declined receipt of a subacromial injection on January 11, 2016, and was 

advised to continue his home exercise program, oral NSAIDs, rest, and ice. Id. 

On April 5, 2016, petitioner was evaluated by orthopedic surgeon, Sanjay 

Palekar, MD. Pet. Ex. 8 at 1. Dr. Palekar found limitation of all movement, specifically 

finding rotation limited with arm by side, however he found no localized tenderness or 

swelling of the left shoulder. Id. Dr. Palekar prescribed Mobic, heat and massage twice

daily, gravity assist exercises, and proper arm positioning. Id. Petitioner was seen 

again by Dr. Palekar on April 25, 2016, at which time his pain was noted to be 

improved, although weakness was described. Id. On May 19, 2016, petitioner reported 

that his pain had subsided, and he could sleep on his left shoulder. Id. However, it was 

noted that petitioner “[s]uddenly reached up for [a] curtain rod, and felt pain. Still has 

weakness.” Id. His examination on May 19, 2016 demonstrated “full rotations with arm 

by the side.” Id. At a subsequent evaluation on July 19, 2016, Dr. Palekar noted 

petitioner still “feels weakness of his left arm.” Id. An examination demonstrated “full 

rotations terminal lack of extension with tightness on anterior.” Id. It was noted that 

petitioner was “making gradual progress,” but that there was “no timetable for recovery.” 

Id.

On January 23, 2017, another MRI was taken of petitioner’s left shoulder at the 

Cleveland Clinic. Pet. Ex. 10 at 3. Naveen Subhas, MD, recorded an impression of “no 

acute abnormality” and “mild rotator cuff tendinosis without tear, unchanged.” Id. (text 

reformatted from original).

Petitioner presented to his primary care provider, Dr. Reddy, at the Cleveland 

Clinic on August 23, 2017 for a Medicare yearly exam. Dr. Reddy noted that petitioner 

complained of a rotator cuff tear, that an injection helped some, and that he “does 

 4 A “Worst Pain” of 10/10 was indicated. Pet. Ex. 5 at 11.
5

exercises and uses warm compresses.” Pet. Ext 15 at 3. Petitioner’s primary 

encounter diagnosis was abdominal aortic aneurysm without rupture. Id. He was noted 

to be an 81-year-old male with pulmonary emphysema. Id. Dr. Reddy also reported 

that petitioner 

feels sad and depressed about this, 5 [he has] always been an active 

person, feels depress[ed]. [He] is not able to do [the] things he used to do. 

This year [he] was unable to use [his] boat. [He] does not want medication 

to help with depression. [He is] willing to try [C]ymbalta. 

Id. It was also noted that petitioner was a three pack a week smoker with no plans of 

quitting but was “trying to cut back.” Id. 

On September 19, 2017, petitioner was seen by orthopedist Andrew Matko, MD, 

at the Cleveland Clinic for an evaluation of his left upper extremity. Pet. Ex. 14 at 2. 

Petitioner reported a “constant ache in his left shoulder radiating down to his left wrist” 

for two years since his flu shot. Id. Petitioner reported to Dr. Matko that he was able 

raise his arm and use his shoulder without weakness, but due to a “constant ache down 

to his hand” he “cannot function as well.” Id. Petitioner reported a cortisone injection 

“helped with some discomfort, but never got rid of the aching.” Id. However, petitioner 

indicated that another cortisone injection “a couple weeks ago . . . did not provide him 

much relief.” Id. Petitioner further described “numbness and tingling throughout his left 

hand” and indicated he does not have “grip strength” in his left hand. Id. On physical 

examination, Dr. Matko found that petitioner had “full range of motion of both 

shoulders,” and no tenderness to palpitation of his left shoulder, upper arm, forearm, 

wrist, or hand. Id. at 3. Dr. Matko examined petitioner’s MRI and indicated that there 

was no evidence of any rotator cuff tearing” but “[t]here is very mild supraspinatus 

tendinosis noted” and “some questionable degenerative labral changes” as well as 

“[s]ome mild hypertrophic changes at the acromioclavicular joint with any significant

impingement projection noted.” Id. Dr. Matko indicated concern that petitioner’s injury 

might be neurological in nature given petitioner’s description of “symptoms with 

radiating pain up and down the arm and numbness in the hand.” Id. He also suspected 

petitioner’s injury could be a cervical radiculopathy. Id. Dr. Matko recommended 

petitioner receive an EMG, nerve conduction study and then follow-up with him. Id. 

It does not appear that petitioner underwent the EMG, or followed-up further with 

Dr. Matko or Cleveland Clinic’s orthopedics department. Rather, petitioner sought 

treatment from the Cleveland Shoulder Institute, where he was evaluated on November 

22, 2017, by Reuben Gobezie, MD. Pet. Ex. 17 at 3. It was noted that petitioner was 

“struggling with left shoulder pain” which started after his October 2015 influenza 

vaccination. Id. Dr. Gobezie noted that petitioner’s “shoulder aches all the time and he 

has a sharp pain with certain motions.” Id. Dr. Gobezie reported that petitioner “denies 

any numbness/tingling.” Id. Dr. Gobezie assessed petitioner with bicipital tendinitis of 

the left shoulder and after reviewing surgical and conservative treatment options with 

petitioner noted that petitioner would like to proceed with surgery. Id. at 5. Petitioner 

was seen again by Dr. Gobezie on December 21, 2017 for a preoperative visit. Id. at 6. 

Thereafter, on December 28, 2017, petitioner underwent the following procedures on 

his left shoulder performed by Dr. Gobezie: open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, 

arthroscopic subacromial decompression with acromioplasty, arthroscopic extensive

 5 Dr. Reddy’s record does not make clear the reason that petitioner felt sad and depressed.
6

debridement, and arthroscopic labral debridement. Id. at 12. Dr. Gobezie pre and 

postoperative diagnosis of petitioner’s left shoulder were identical, as follows: biceps 

tendon tear, superior labral tear, and impingement. Id. It was noted that the extensive 

debridement “took a considerable amount of time.” Id. at 13.

Petitioner was seen for a post-operative visit with Dr. Gobezie on January 3, 

2018. Dr. Gobezie noted that petitioner’s “activity level is back to pre-operative” status 

and that petitioner was “doing well” and had “mild pain.” Pet. Ex. 17 at 15. Petitioner 

was seen again by Dr. Gobezie on February 19, 2018. At that time, Dr. Gobezie 

indicated that petitioner was “getting better every day,” was not taking medication, and 

had “shoulder aches on occasions with movement.” Id. at 19. It was noted that 

petitioner was doing physical therapy on his own. Id. Petitioner was advised to followup “prn” (“as needed”). Id. at 20. No subsequent medical records have been filed. 

On January 2, 2019, petitioner filed a status report indicating that he had filed all 

medical records and other evidence in regard to damages. (ECF No. 55). 

III. Party Contentions

Petitioner seeks an award in the amount of $146,219.47, consisting of 

$140,000.00 as compensation for his actual pain and suffering, $5,000.00 for his 

projected pain and suffering, and $1,219.47 for past unreimbursable medical expenses. 

Petitioner’s Motion for Findings of Fact Regarding Damages (“Pet. Motion”) at ¶¶ 5, 13-

14 (ECF No. 56).6

In support of his claim for damages, petitioner compares the facts in his case to 

those in three other decisions, Knudson, Dobbins, and Collado7 in which amounts from 

$110,000.00 to $125,000.00 were awarded by the undersigned. Pet. Motion ¶¶ 16-21. 

Petitioner points to some similarities between his case and these cases, but draws other 

distinctions to argue the pain and suffering in the instant case appears greater. Id. 

Respondent argues that petitioner should be awarded $107,000.00 as 

compensation for his actual pain and suffering. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s 

Motion for Finding of Fact Regarding Damages (“Resp. Response”) at 1 (ECF No. 57). 

Respondent argues that petitioner’s medical records document “that his clinical course 

did not necessitate[ ] immediate or consistent ongoing treatment. Nor does he have 

ongoing pain that would necessitate an award on the higher end of the statutory range.” 

Id. at 13. Comparing petitioner’s facts to those in the undersigned’s decisions in 

 6 Petitioner requests a Finding of Fact Regarding Damages and requests the undersigned to make factual 

findings as to petitioner’s damages pursuant to Vaccine Rule 8. However, the undersigned notes that the 

appropriate ripe ruling in this case is a Decision on Damages.

7 Knudson v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1004V, 2018 WL 6293381 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 

7, 2018) (awarding $110,000.00 for pain and suffering and $305.07 in unreimbursable medical 

expenses); Collado v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-225V, 2018 WL 3433352 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. June 6, 2018) (awarding $120,000.00 for pain and suffering and $772.53 in unreimbursable medical 

expenses); Dobbins v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-854V, 2018 WL 4611267 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Aug. 15, 2018) (awarding $125,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,143.80 in unreimbursable 

medical expenses);
7

Desrosier, Dhanoa, Marino, Young, and Knudson8 respondent asserts [u]nder the 

totality of the circumstances, an award of no more than $107,000.00 for pain and 

suffering for petitioner’s []SIRVA is just and fair compensation.” Id. at 15. Additionally, 

“[r]espondent does not dispute petitioner’s claim for past unreimbursed expenses is 

well-supported and related to his right SIRVA.” Id.

IV. Discussion and Analysis

Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “actual and 

projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an 

award not to exceed $250,000.” § 15(a)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of proof with 

respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y Health & Human 

Servs., No. 93-92V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18, 1996). 

Medical records are the most reliable evidence regarding a petitioner’s medical 

condition and the effect it has on their daily life. Shapiro v. Sec’y Health & Human 

Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532, 537-38 (2011) (“[t]here is little doubt that the decisional law in 

the vaccine area favors medical records created contemporaneously with the events 

they describe over subsequent recollections.”). 

There is no formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and 

suffering and emotional distress. See I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-

1593V, 2013 WL 2448125 at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013), originally issued 

Apr. 19, 2013 (“I.D.”) (“Awards for emotional distress are inherently subjective and 

cannot be determined by using a mathematical formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs., No. 93-172V, 1996 WL 300594 at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22,

1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is inherently a subjective evaluation”). In 

determining an award for pain and suffering and emotional distress, it is appropriate to 

consider the severity of injury and awareness and duration of suffering. See I.D., 2013 

WL 2448125 at *9-11(citing McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 91-

1037V, 1993 WL 777030 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded 

on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). In evaluating these factors, the 

undersigned has reviewed the entire record, including medical records and affidavits 

submitted by petitioner and others.

The undersigned may also look to prior pain and suffering awards to aid in her 

resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering this case. 

 8 Desrosiers v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-224V, 2017 WL 5507804 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. 

Sept. 19, 2017) (awarding $85,000.00 for pain and suffering and $336.20 in past unreimbursable medical 

expenses); Dhanoa v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018) (awarding $85,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $10,000.00 for projected pain and 

suffering for one year, and $862.15 in past unreimbursable medical expenses); Marino v. Sec’y Health & 

Human Servs., No. 16-622V, 2018 WL 2224736 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2018) (awarding 

$75,000.00 for pain and suffering and $88.88 in unreimbursable medical expenses); Young v. Sec’y 

Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1241V, 2019 WL 664495 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 22, 2019) (awarding

$100,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $2,293.15 for past unreimbursable expenses); Knudson v. 

Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1004V, 2018 WL 6293381 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) 

(awarding $110,000.00 for pain and suffering and $305.07 in unreimbursable medical expenses).
8

See, e.g., Jane Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) 

(finding that “there is nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to 

damages for pain and suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the 

proper amount of damages in this case.”). And, of course, the undersigned also may 

rely on her own experience adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated the 

special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to 

judge the merits of individual claims). Importantly, it must be stressed that pain and 

suffering is not determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013). 

In Graves, the Court rejected the special master’s approach of awarding 

compensation for pain and suffering based on a spectrum from $0.00 to the 

$250,000.00 statutory cap. The Court noted that this constituted “forcing of all suffering 

awards into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is 

compared to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Graves, 109 Fed. Cl. 

at 590. Instead, the Court assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record 

evidence, prior pain and suffering awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of 

similar injury claims outside of the Vaccine Program. Id. at 595. 

A. History of SIRVA Settlement and Proffer

SIRVA cases have an extensive history of informal resolution within the SPU. As 

of January 1, 2019, 1,023 SIRVA cases have informally resolved9 within the Special 

Processing Unit since its inception in July of 2014. Of those cases, 602 resolved via the 

government’s proffer on award of compensation, following a prior ruling that petitioner is 

entitled to compensation.10 Additionally, 395 SPU SIRVA cases resolved via stipulated 

agreement of the parties without a prior ruling on entitlement.

Among the SPU SIRVA cases resolved via government proffer, awards have 

typically ranged from $77,000.00 to $125,000.00.11 The median award is $100,000.00. 

In most instances, these awards are presented by the parties as a total agreed upon 

dollar figure without separately listed amounts for expenses, lost wages, or pain and 

suffering. 

 9 Additionally, 31 claims alleging SIRVA have been dismissed within the SPU.

10 Additionally, there have been 16 prior cases in which petitioner was found to be entitled to 

compensation, but where damages were resolved via a stipulated agreement by the parties rather than 

government proffer.

11 Typical range refers to cases within the second and third quartiles. Additional outlier awards also exist. 

The full range of awards spans from $25,000.00 to $1,845,047.00. Among the 16 SPU SIRVA cases 

resolved via stipulation following a finding of entitlement, awards range from $45,000.00 to $1,500,000.00 

with a median award of $122,886.42. For these awards, the second and third quartiles range from 

$90,000.00 to $160,502.39.
9

Among SPU SIRVA cases resolved via stipulation, awards have typically ranged 

from $50,000.00 to $95,000.00.12 The median award is $70,000.00. As with proffered 

cases, in most instances, stipulated awards are presented by the parties as a total 

agreed upon dollar figure without separately listed amounts for expenses, lost wages, or 

pain and suffering. Unlike the proffered awards, which purportedly represent full 

compensation for all of petitioner’s damages, stipulated awards also typically represent 

some degree of litigative risk negotiated by the parties. 

B. Prior Decisions Addressing SIRVA Damages

In addition to the extensive history of informal resolution, the undersigned has 

also issued 14 reasoned decisions as of the end of March of 2019 addressing the 

appropriate amount of compensation in prior SIRVA cases within the SPU.13

i. Below-median awards limited to past pain and suffering

In six prior SPU cases, the undersigned has awarded compensation for pain and 

suffering limited to compensation for actual or past pain and suffering that has fallen 

below the amount of the median proffer discussed above. These awards ranged from 

$60,000.00 to $85,000.00.14 These cases have all included injuries with a “good” 

prognosis, albeit in some instances with some residual pain. All of these cases had 

only mild to moderate limitations in range of motion and MRI imaging likewise showed 

only evidence of mild to moderate pathologies such as tendinosis, bursitis or edema. 

 12 Typical range refers to cases within the second and third quartiles. Additional outlier awards also exist. 

The full range of awards spans from $5,000.00 to $509,552.31. Additionally, two stipulated awards were 

limited to annuities, the exact amounts of which were not determined at the time of judgment.

13 An additional case, Young v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1241V, was removed from the SPU 

due to the protracted nature of the damages phase of that case. In that case the undersigned awarded 

$100,000.00 in compensation for past pain and suffering and $2,293.15 for past unreimbursable 

expenses. 2019 WL 664495 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 22, 2019). A separate reasoned ruling addressed 

the amount awarded. Young v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1241V, 2019 WL 396981 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4, 2019).

14 These cases are: Knauss v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1372V, 2018 WL 3432906 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2018) (awarding $60,000.00 for pain and suffering and $170.00 in unreimbursable 

medical expenses); Marino v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-622V, 2018 WL 2224736 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2018) (awarding $75,000.00 for pain and suffering and $88.88 in unreimbursable 

medical expenses); Attig v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1029V, 2019 WL 1749405 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Feb. 19, 2019) (awarding $75,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,386.97 in unreimbursable 

medical expenses); Kim v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-418V, 2018 WL 3991022 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. July 20, 2018) (awarding $75,000.00 for pain and suffering and $520.00 in unreimbursable 

medical expenses); Desrosiers v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-224V, 2017 WL 5507804 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 19, 2017) (awarding $85,000.00 for pain and suffering and $336.20 in past 

unreimbursable medical expenses); Dirksen v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1461V, 2018 WL 

6293201 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2018) (awarding $85,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,784.56 

in unreimbursable medical expenses).
10

The duration of injury ranged from seven to 21 months and, on average, these 

petitioners saw between 11 and 12 months of pain. 

Significant pain was reported in these cases for up to eight months. However, in 

most cases, these petitioners subjectively rated their pain as six or below on a ten-point 

scale. Only the petitioners in Kim and Attig reported pain at the upper end of the tenpoint scale. Most of these petitioners pursued physical therapy for two months or less 

and none had any surgery. Only two (Attig and Marino) had cortisone injections. 

Several of these cases (Knauss, Marino, Kim, and Dirksen) delayed in seeking 

treatment. These delays ranged from about 42 days in Kim to over six months in 

Marino. 

Two of the petitioners (Marino and Desrosiers) had significant lifestyle factors 

that contributed to their awards. In Marino, petitioner presented evidence that her 

SIRVA prevented her from her avid tennis hobby. In Desrosiers, petitioner presented 

evidence that her pregnancy and childbirth prevented her from immediately seeking full 

treatment of her injury.

ii. Above-median awards limited to past pain and suffering

Additionally, in five prior SPU cases, the undersigned has awarded 

compensation limited to past pain and suffering falling above the median proffered 

SIRVA award. These awards have ranged from $110,000.00 to $160,000.00.15 Like 

those in the preceding group, the prognosis was “good.” However, as compared to 

those petitioners receiving a below-median award, these cases were characterized 

either by a longer duration of injury or by the need for surgical repair. Four out of five 

underwent some form of shoulder surgery while the fifth (Cooper) experienced two full 

years of pain and suffering, eight months of which were considered significant, while 

seeking extended conservative treatment. On the whole, MRI imaging in these cases 

also showed more significant findings. In four out of five cases, MRI imaging showed 

possible evidence of partial tearing.16 No MRI study was performed in the Cooper case.

 15 These cases are: Cooper v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1387V, 2018 WL 6288181 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) (awarding $110,000.00 for pain and suffering and $3,642.33 in unreimbursable 

medical expenses); Knudson v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1004V, 2018 WL 6293381 (Fed. 

Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) (awarding $110,000.00 for pain and suffering and $305.07 in 

unreimbursable medical expenses); Collado v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-225V, 2018 WL 

3433352 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 6, 2018) (awarding $120,000.00 for pain and suffering and $772.53 

in unreimbursable medical expenses); Dobbins v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 16-854V, 2018 WL 

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

$3,143.80 in unreimbursable medical expenses); Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-

1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2019) (awarding $160,000.00 for pain and 

suffering and $4,931.06 in unreimbursable medical expenses).

16 In Reed, MRI showed edema in the infraspinatus tendon of the right shoulder with a possible tendon 

tear and a small bone bruise of the posterior humeral head. In Dobbins, MRI showed a full-thickness 

partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon extending to the bursal surface, bursal surface fraying and partial 

thickness tear of the tendon, tear of the posterior aspects of the inferior glen humeral ligament, and 

moderate sized joint effusion with synovitis and possible small loose bodies. In Collado, MRI showed a 

partial bursal surface tear of the infraspinatus and of the supraspinatus. In Knudson, MRI showed mild 
11

During treatment, each of these petitioners subjectively rated their pain within the 

upper half of a ten-point pain scale and all experienced moderate to severe limitations in 

range of motion. Moreover, these petitioners tended to seek treatment of their injuries 

more immediately. Time to first treatment ranged from five days to 43 days. Duration of 

physical therapy ranged from one to 24 months and three out of the five had cortisone 

injections.

iii. Awards including compensation for both past and future 

pain and suffering

In three prior SPU SIRVA cases, the undersigned has awarded compensation for 

both past and future pain and suffering.17 In two of those cases (Hooper and Binette), 

petitioners experienced moderate to severe limitations in range of motion and moderate 

to severe pain. The Hooper petitioner underwent surgery while in Binette, petitioner 

was deemed not a candidate for surgery following an arthrogram. Despite significant 

physical therapy (and surgery in Hooper), medical opinion indicated that their disability 

would be permanent. In these two cases, petitioners were awarded above-median 

awards for actual pain and suffering as well as awards for projected pain and suffering 

for the duration of their life expectancies. In the third case (Dhanoa), petitioner’s injury 

was less severe than in Hooper or Binette; however, petitioner had been actively 

treating just prior to the case becoming ripe for decision and her medical records 

reflected that she was still symptomatic despite a good prognosis. The undersigned 

awarded an amount below-median for actual pain and suffering, but, in light of the facts 

and circumstances of the case, also awarded one-year of projected pain and suffering.

C. Determining Petitioner’s Award of Pain and Suffering in This Case

In the experience of the undersigned, awareness of suffering is not typically a 

disputed issue in cases involving SIRVA. In this case, neither party has raised, nor is 

the undersigned aware of, any issue concerning petitioner’s awareness of suffering and 

the undersigned finds that this matter is not in dispute. Thus, based on the 

circumstances of this case, the undersigned determines that petitioner had full 

awareness of his suffering. 

 

longitudinally oriented partial-thickness tear of the infraspinatus tendon, mild supraspinatus and 

infraspinatus tendinopathy, small subcortical cysts and mild subcortical bone marrow edema over the 

posterior-superior-lateral aspect of the humeral head adjacent to the infraspinatus tendon insertion site, 

and minimal subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis.

17 These cases are: Dhanoa v. Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 15-1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. 

Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018) (awarding $85,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $10,000.00 for projected 

pain and suffering for one year, and $862.15 in past unreimbursable medical expenses); Binette v. Sec’y 

Health & Human Servs., No. 16-731V, 2019 WL 1552620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019) (awarding 

$130,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $1,000.00 per year for a life expectancy of 57 years for 

projected pain and suffering, and $7,101.98 for past unreimbursable medical expenses); and Hooper v. 

Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 17-12V, 2019 WL 1561519 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019)

(awarding $185,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, $1,500.00 per year for a life expectancy of 30 years 

for projected pain and suffering, $37,921.48 for lost wages).
12

a. Severity and Duration of the Injury

i. Affidavit Testimony

With respect to the severity of petitioner’s injury, petitioner’s affidavit testimony18

regarding pain and suffering provides a description of pain suffered for over two years 

from his vaccination on October 17, 2015 until after his surgery on December 28, 2017. 

Pet. Ex. 19 ¶¶ 6-21. Petitioner averred that for over two years he suffered “severe 

chronic pain and physical disability.” Id. at ¶13. Petitioner stated that his shoulder pain 

woke him up several times a night and that during this time period he was unable to 

sleep more than three to four hours a night. Id. Petitioner states that in order to fall 

asleep it was necessary for him to take 1000mg of acetaminophen nightly, and that for 

this period of more than two years he was chronically fatigued. Id. Petitioner testified 

that due to his extreme pain he could no longer enjoy his pre-vaccination activities of 

riding his bike, piloting his boat, and landscaping and caring for his home and property.

Id. at ¶14. Petitioner stated because he could barely move one arm he had to rely upon 

his wife for daily tasks, such as dressing, caring for their pets, and preparing food. Id. 

at ¶16. The loss of his independence petitioner stated caused him to feel sad and 

frustrated as he took pride in his independence. Id. Petitioner testified that his inability 

to enjoy his hobbies, and abrupt change from an active to a “sedentary life of chronic 

pain was very difficult emotionally.” Id. at ¶15. Petitioner states he experienced periods 

of depression as a result, and experienced changes in his disposition which caused a 

strain in his marriage, family relationships, and friendships. Id. at ¶15. Petitioner states 

because of his age at the time of his vaccination and injury, 79, his sleep deprivation 

and pain and the loss of activities he enjoyed was more severe than it may otherwise 

have been, asserting “activity and plenty sleep are essential for good mental and 

physical health as a person ages.” Id. at ¶17. 

Petitioner testified that it was his impression from his doctors that he was not a 

good candidate for surgery, and he concluded that his injury was permanent, and that 

he had “nothing to look forward to except pain, fatigue, and boredom.” Id. at ¶19. 

Petitioner stated this was particularly distressing given the fulfilling retirement he had 

worked for of landscaping, boating, biking, and sharing these activities with is family, 

making him more depressed. Id.

At the recommendation of a friend, petitioner consulted with Dr. Gobezie of the 

Cleveland Shoulder Institute for a second opinion regarding surgery. This appointment 

was on November 22, 2017. Dr. Gobezie, petitioner testified, recommended surgery 

which was performed on December 28, 2017. Id. at ¶20. Petitioner testified that 

subsequent to his surgery Dr. Gobezie recommended a lengthy period of rest and home 

physical therapy which petitioner followed, and that by the “summer of 2018” petitioner 

testified his “shoulder had improved markedly. At this point I would say that I have 

almost completely regained my prior level of functioning, although I continue to 

experience occasional aches and pain in this shoulder.” Id. at ¶21.

 18 Petitioner’s affidavit regarding pain and suffering was sworn to and subscribed before a Notary Public 

on January 2, 2019. Pet. Ex. 19 at 5.
13

ii. Medical Record Evidence

 Petitioner first sought treatment approximately 45 days after his vaccination. 

Pet. Ex. 12 at 2. At that time, he reported pain rated 6/10, an inability to sleep on his left 

side, and an inability to raise his left arm. Pet. Ex. 12 at 3. Petitioner demonstrated loss 

or range of motion and pain in his left shoulder on physical exam. Pet. Ex. 12 at 3-4. 

Petitioner was referred to physical therapy and completed five sessions between 

December 8 and December 31, 2015. Petitioner also followed up with his primary care 

provider on December 16, 2015, and orthopedics on December 29, 2015. Pet. Ex. 7 at 

37; Pet. Ex. 6 at 3. Petitioner’s reports to his providers throughout this month varied in 

regard to the severity of his symptoms. On December 8, 2015 at his first physical 

therapy visit, petitioner reported pain level of 6/10 with arm movement and was found to 

have moderate limitations of the left shoulder in abduction and scaption. Pet. Ex. 5 at 3-

4. He also reported he had not had a good night’s sleep since his injury. Id. at 3. 

Additionally, petitioner presented with a high disability score of his left shoulder of 77%. 

Id. at 5-6. On December 16, 2015, he reported to his primary provider that he did not 

think physical therapy was helping and was referred to orthopedics. Pet. Ex. 7 at 37-

38. However, one day later, at a physical therapy visit petitioner reported his shoulder 

was improving every day and he awakened without pain that morning for the first time. 

Pet. Ex. 11 at 7. On discharge from physical therapy on December 31, 2017,

petitioner’s disability score remained high at 77%, petitioner reported his sleeping 

remained significantly impacted due to his shoulder pain, and that in addition to the pain 

another frustrating factor was his fatigue. Pet. Ex. 5 at 11. On examination he was 

found to have a moderate limitation with elevation movement. Id. Petitioner reported 

no current left shoulder pain, and a pain with movement at 5/10. Id. Petitioner’s 

therapist noted that while at one point during therapy he seemed to be improving, 

reporting improved pain and demonstrating increased range of motion. Id. at 13. 

However, on discharge petitioner’s symptoms seemed to have returned to frequency 

and intensity levels similar to when he began therapy. Id.

Petitioner was noted to have mild improvement with the use of prednisone by 

orthopedics on January 5, 2016, however he continued to have limited range of motion 

and was referred for an MRI. Pet. Ex. 6 at 15, 18. Petitioner’s January 7, 2016 left 

shoulder MRI report demonstrated: “moderate chronic subacromial subdeltoid bursitis; 

rotator cuff tendinosis without full-thickness tear, retraction or muscle atrophy; [and a]

mildly complex labral tear, likely degenerative.” Id. at 28 (text reformatted from original). 

On January 11, 2016, petitioner was seen by orthopedics in follow-up to his MRI and 

assessed with bursitis of the left shoulder, acromioclavicular joint arthritis, left shoulder 

tendonitis, left shoulder impingement, and a degenerative tear of the glenoid labrum of 

his left shoulder. Id. at 29. Petitioner declined a subacromial injection on this date, and 

was advised to continue his home exercise program, oral NSAIDs, rest, and ice. Id. at 

29.

Thereafter, petitioner treated at a different orthopedic office, with Sanjay Palekar, 

MD, from April 5, 2016 through July 19, 2016. Pet. Ex. 8 at 1. By July 19, 2016, Dr. 

Palekar noted petitioner still “feels weakness of his left arm.” Id. An examination 

demonstrated “full rotations terminal lack of extension with tightness on anterior.” Id. It 
14

was noted that petitioner was “making gradual progress,” but that there was “no 

timetable for recovery.” Id.

On January 23, 2017, another MRI was taken of petitioner’s left shoulder an 

impression of “no acute abnormality” and “mild rotator cuff tendinosis without tear, 

unchanged” was recorded. Pet. Ex. 10 at 3 (text reformatted from original).

Petitioner complained to his primary care provider, Dr. Reddy, on August 23, 

2017, of a rotator cuff tear, noted that an injection helped some, and indicated that he 

does exercises and uses warm compresses. Pet. Ext 15 at 3. Dr. Reddy reported in 

his records that petitioner was feeling sad and depressed. Although the specific 

reasons for the feelings is not made clear, Dr. Reddy does note that petitioner shared

he “[has] always been an active person, feels depress[ed]. [He is] not able to do [the]

things he used to do. This year [he]was unable to use [his] boat. [He] does not want 

medication to help with depression. [He] is willing to try [C]ymbalta.” Id. 

Petitioner returned to the Cleveland Clinic’s orthopedic department and was seen 

by orthopedist Andrew Matko, MD on September 19, 2017. Pet. Ex. 14 at 2. Petitioner 

reported a “constant ache in his left shoulder radiating down to his left wrist” for two 

years since his flu shot. Id. Specifically, he reported he was unable raise his arm and 

use his shoulder without weakness, due to a “constant ache down to his hand” he 

“cannot function as well.” Id. Petitioner reported a cortisone injection “helped with 

some discomfort, but never got rid of the aching.” Id. It was also noted that another 

cortisone injection a few weeks prior “did not provide him much relief.” Id. Petitioner 

further described “numbness and tingling throughout his left hand” and indicated he 

does not have “grip strength” in his left hand. Id. However, on physical examination Dr. 

Matko found that petitioner had “full range of motion of both shoulders,” and no 

tenderness to palpitation of his left shoulder, upper arm, forearm, wrist, or hand. Id. at 

3. Dr. Matko examined petitioner’s MRI and indicated that there was no evidence of 

any rotator cuff tearing” but “[t]here is very mild supraspinatus tendinosis noted” and 

“some questionable degenerative labral changes” as well as “[s]ome mild hypertrophic 

changes at the acromioclavicular joint with any significant impingement projection 

noted.” Id. Dr. Matko indicated concern that petitioner’s injury might be neurological in 

nature, recommending petitioner receive an EMG. Id.

Instead, petitioner sought treatment from Reuben Gobezie, MD, at the Cleveland 

Shoulder Institute on November 22, 2017. Pet. Ex. 17 at 3. Dr. Gobezie noted that 

petitioner’s “shoulder aches all the time and he has a sharp pain with certain motions.” 

Id. Dr. Gobezie also reported that petitioner “denies any numbness/tingling.” Id. After 

reviewing surgical and conservative treatment options with petitioner Dr. Gobezie noted 

that petitioner would like to proceed with surgery. Id. at 5. On December 28, 2017 

petitioner underwent the following procedures on his left shoulder performed by Dr. 

Gobezie: open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, arthroscopic subacromial decompression 

with acromioplasty, arthroscopic extensive debridement, and arthroscopic labral 

debridement. Id. at 12. Dr. Gobezie pre and postoperative diagnosis of petitioner’s left 

shoulder were identical, as follows: biceps tendon tear, superior labral tear, and 

impingement. Id. It was noted that the extensive debridement “took a considerable 

amount of time.” Id. at 13.

The most recent records filed by petitioner are from a February 19, 2018 postsurgical evaluation by Dr. Gobezie. Dr. Gobezie indicated that petitioner was “getting 
15

better every day,” was not taking medication, and had “shoulder aches on occasions 

with movement.” Id. at 19. Petitioner was reported to be doing physical therapy on his 

own and advised to follow-up as needed. Id. at 20.

There are no further documented symptoms or treatment for petitioner’s shoulder 

in the medical records after this date. 

b. Pain and Suffering

In total, petitioner experienced approximately 28 months of documented 

moderate level pain and suffering from his October 17, 2015 vaccination through his 

February 19, 2018 post-surgical visit with Dr. Gobezie. Petitioner’s reported pain levels 

throughout his physical therapy were 6/10 and was 5/10 upon discharge.

The course of petitioner’s condition as described above is somewhat unique in 

that he experienced pain and suffering relatively consistently for over 26 months, 

although his symptoms seemed to wax and wane, until he improved substantially postsurgery. The undersigned recognizes and finds that petitioner suffered significant sleep 

deprivation and resulting fatigue because of his injury. Additionally, he became 

depressed at times due to his loss of independence, and the inability to enjoy the 

activities and hobbies in which he took pleasure. Finally, petitioner underwent 

significant operative procedures 26 months after his initial injury only after which did he 

find substantial relief. 

The Desrosiers, Marino, Dhanoa, and Young cases, cited by respondent did not 

involve surgery and are not comparable to petitioner’s course of injury. Petitioner not 

only experienced a significantly longer period of injury, but his two cortisone injections, 

surgical procedures and findings were indicative of a more severe injury. The 

undersigned finds the pain and suffering experienced by petitioner more comparable to 

that in the Collado and Dobbins cases. The undersigned agrees with petitioner that his 

surgical procedures were roughly comparable to those in Collado and Dobbins. See

Pet. Motion at ¶¶19, 21. While the petitioners in Collado and Dobbins did not 

experience a total injury time as long as petitioner, the severity level of pain experienced 

by petitioners in those two cases prior to surgery appears higher than that experienced 

by petitioner. 

In light of all of the above, and based on the record as a whole, the undersigned 

finds that $125,000.00 in compensation for past pain and suffering is reasonable and 

appropriate in this case. 

D. Award for Future Pain and Suffering

With respect to petitioner’s request for future pain and suffering, the undersigned 

finds that petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that such an award is 

warranted. 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). Contemporaneous 

medical records generally provide the most reliable supporting documentation of a 
16

medical condition and the effect it has on an individual’s daily life. See Shapiro v. Sec’y 

of Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532, 537-38 (2011) (“[t]here is little doubt that 

the decisional law in the vaccine area favors medical records created 

contemporaneously with the events they describe over subsequent recollections”), citing

United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948); see also Cucuras v. Sec’y of 

Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528-29 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that medical 

records are generally contemporaneous to the medical events recorded and are 

generally trustworthy records). 

In this case, the record shows that petitioner obtained significant relief from 

surgery. His last filed medical record documenting his February 19, 2018 post surgical 

evaluation by Dr. Gobezie indicates he was “getting better every day,” was not taking 

medication, and had “shoulder aches on occasions with movement.” Pet. Ex. 17 at 19. 

There are no further documented symptoms or treatment for petitioner’s shoulder 

in the medical records after this date. Petitioner notes in his affidavit that by the 

summer of 2018 his “shoulder had improved markedly . . . [a]t this point I would say 

that I have almost completely regained my prior level of functioning, although I continue 

to experience occasional aches and pain in this shoulder.” Pet. Ex. 19 at ¶21.

The undersigned finds that petitioner has not met his burden of establishing by 

preponderant evidence that he is entitled to an award for future pain and suffering. 

E. Award for Past Unreimbursed Expenses

Petitioner requests $1,219.47 in past unreimbursable expenses for which he 

provides supporting documentation and is awarded the full amount requested. Pet. Ex. 

18. 

F. Amount of the Award

In determining an award in this case, the undersigned does not rely on a single 

decision or case. Rather, the undersigned has reviewed the particular facts and 

circumstances in this case, giving due consideration to the circumstances and damages 

in other cases cited by the parties and other relevant cases, as well as her knowledge 

and experience adjudicating similar cases. For all the reasons discussed above, the 

undersigned finds that $125,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate amount of 

compensation for petitioner’s past pain and suffering. In addition, the undersigned finds 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation for $1,219.47 for his past unreimbursed 

medical expenses. No award is made for lost wages.

V. Conclusion

In light of all of the above, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum 

payment of $126,219.47, (representing $125,000.00 for petitioner’s past pain and 

suffering and $1,219.47 for unreimbursable medical expenses) in the form of a check 

payable to petitioner, Robert Wallace. This amount represents compensation for all

damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id. 
17

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master

 19 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.