In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0635V

UNPUBLISHED

PATRICIA SLUGO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: January 31, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Decision Awarding Damages; Pain 

and Suffering; Influenza (Flu) 

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On April 30, 2019, Patricia Slugo 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on 

September 26, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 EGovernment 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

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 were notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, 

which ultimately took place on January 28, 2022

Petitioner seeks an award of $110,000.00 in compensation for Petitioner’s actual 

pain and suffering. Respondent recommends an award of $80,000.00.

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 January 28, 2022 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 II and III of Winkle v. 

Sec’y Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0485V, 2022 WL 221643, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. 

Mstr. Jan. 11, 2022) 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 $108,000.00

represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual 

pain and suffering.3 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to $900.00 in actual 

unreimbursable expenses and $901.42 in lost wages. 

Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $109,801.42 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 the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.4

3 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)).

4 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master