1

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LORI SCHOONOVER , * PUBLISHED * Petitioner, * No. 16

- 1324V *
v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Ruling Awarding Damages; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. * Admi nistration (“SIRVA”).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Amy A. Senerth , Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner. Jennifer L

. Reynaud , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING AWARDING DAMAGES 1
On October 12, 2016 , 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 s he suffered a left shoulder injury caused by an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on October 16, 2013

. Petition at P reamble

. A Ruling on Entitlement issued on January 30 , 2019, finding the petitioner was entitled to compensation for her shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ). Ruling on Entitlement dated Jan. 30, 2019

1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this Ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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 Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. As prov ided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes med ical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b).

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). 

# In the United Sta tes Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF S PECIAL M ASTERS File d: August 5, 20202

3 In her memorandum, petitione r requested $9,737.97 for past lost wages. Petitioner’s Damages Memorandum (“Pet. Memo.”), filed Feb. 27, 2020, at 1 (ECF No. 81). She has since withdrawn that request, and no longer seeks lost wages. See Respondent’s Status Report (“Resp. Status Rept .” ), filed Apr. 27, 2020 (ECF No. 87). Petitioner is not seeking unreimbursed expenses. See Pet. Status Rept

. , filed Mar

. 31, 2020 (ECF No. 83 ).

4 Based on petitioner’s birth date of September 15, 1968 , petitioner is expected to live for approximately 33 years
. See Elizabeth Arias & Jiaquan Xu, Ctr s
. for Disease Control & Prevention, Nat’l Ctr. for Health Stat

. , United States Life Tables, 201 7 , 68 Nat’l Vital Stat. Reps. 1, 3 tbl.A (201 9 )

.
5 Petitioner and her husband’s affidavits were originally filed as Petitioner’s Exhibits 15 and 16, but these were not notarized. Notarized affidavits were refiled as Petitioner’s Exhibits 20 and 21. (ECF No. 59). The purp ose of this Ruling is t o adjudica te an appropriate award for pain and suffering damages. 3 For the re asons discussed below, the unde rsigne d finds that petitione r is awarded $200,000.00 for a ctual pain and suffe ring and $1,2 00.00 pe r yea r, for pe titioner’s remaining li fe e xpectancy, fo r future p ain and suffering. 4
I. BACKGROUND Petitioner’s relevant medical history w as set f orth in the R

uling on Entitlement and Petitioner’s Damages Memora ndum and will not be repeated here. See Ruling on Entitlement dated Jan. 30, 2019 (ECF No. 59) ; Petitioner’s Damages Memorandum (“Pet. Memo.”), filed Feb. 27, 2020 (ECF No. 81). After the R uling on Entitlement wa s issued, petitioner filed documents to support a c laim for lost wa ges, including tax re turns. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 17. Ultimately, petitioner withdre w he r claim for lost wa ges. See Resp ondent’s Status Report (“Resp. Status Rept.”) , filed Apr. 27, 2020 (ECF No. 87). Petitioner filed affidavits from herself and her husba nd to support her claim for p ain and suffering. Pet. Ex s. 20-21. 5 Notably, petitioner is license d respiratory ther apist. Pet. Ex. 20 at ¶ 3. She works in labor a nd delivery, assisting with the c are o f infants pre- and post-delivery. Id. Due to her shoulder injury , her work ha s been affected. Id. at ¶ 6. Additionally, petitioner is no longer a ble to pursue he r dream j ob of being a tra nsport respiratory ther apist, due to difficulties reaching, moving a ba by, performing ba g v entilation and chest compressions, and providing tra cheostomy care. Id. at ¶¶ 30- 31. Petitioner’s family li fe h a s also been impacted by h er injury. See id. at ¶¶ 35-37. She is unable to actively p articipate in all the a ctivities she use to enjoy with her two sons, and ha s bee n forced to become a spe c tator due to her a rm pain. Id. at ¶ 37.
II. PARTIES ’ POSITIONS Petitioner requests an award of $235,000.00 for actual pain and suffering an d $1,500.00 pe r year for her life expectancy, reduced to the p resent net va lue, for futur e pa in and suffering. Pet. Memo. at 1. She se eks this amount of compensation based on the severity of he r left shoulder injury, which required two shoulder surgeries, multiple steroid injections, numerous3

There is no formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and sufferi ng and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec ’ y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 0 4

- 1593V, 2013 WL 2448125 , at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“Awards for emotional distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical formula

. ”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 93

- 172V, 1996 WL 300594 , at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“ [T] he assessment of pain and suffering is inherently a subjective evaluation

. ”). 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. 6 I.D. , 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No

. 91

- 103 7 V, 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). Further, “ when an amount is awarded for ‘ projected ’

— i.e., future

— ‘ pain and

6 In this case, awareness of the injury is not in dispute. The record reflects that at all relevant times petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact h er awareness of h er injury. Therefore, the undersigned’s analysis will focus principally on the severity and duration of petitioner’s injury. physical therapy visi ts over the course of severa l years, and narcotic analgesics for tw o years. Id. In support of he r reque st for a n awa rd for futur e p ain and suffering, petitioner cite s Hooper v. Secretary of Health & H uman Services, No. 17-12V, 2019 WL 1561519 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019) . Id. at 11. Mr. Hooper was awarded $1,500.00 pe r yea r for his life e xpectancy after he sust ained a 50% partial shoulder disabil ity. Hooper, 2019 WL 156 1519, at *9-10. Respondent proposes a n award of $165,000.00 for pa in and suffering. Resp. Damages Memo. (“Resp. Memo.”), filed June 16, 2020, at 1 (ECF No. 89). “ Respondent does not dispute that petitioner’s course d uring the two yea rs following he r vaccination was more se vere than many shoul der injury cases, ” but argues that there was a gap in treatment f or about one year, fr om October 2015 to October 2016 , which “ suggests that her shoulder pain during thi s timeframe was . . . less severe th an it wa s in October 2015.” Id. a t 10-11. Furthe r, respondent argues that beginning in 2017, petitioner developed chronic ba ck and leg p ain, and that her current limitations are du e to that condition and not her S IRVA. Id. at 11. Citing Collado v. Secretary of Health & H uman Services, N o. 17 -0225V, 2018 WL 343335 2, at *6-8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 6, 2018), respondent notes that future pa in and suffering damages were not awarded where a lleged ongoing s ymptoms were n ot supported by medi cal rec ords. Id. Al though respondent agrees that petitioner here ha d a sim ilar clinical course to the pe titioner in Hooper, medica l records filed from 2015 to 2018 do not document any on going shoul der complaints, and thus, an awa rd for futur e pain and suffering is not appropriate. Id. at 12.
III. DISCUSSION Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “ [f]or actual and projected pa in and suffering a nd emotional distress from the va ccine-related injury, a n award not to exceed $250,000.” § 15(a)(4). Petitioner be ars the burden of proof wit h 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)

.4

suffering, ’ such amount must be adjusted to its ‘ net present value. ’ ” Childers ex rel. Overheu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 96

- 194V, 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)).
The undersigned may look to prior pain and suffering awards to aid in her resolution of the appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering

. See, e.g. , Doe 34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. 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 experi ence adjudicating similar claims. 7 Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. 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, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering is not de termined based on a continuum. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (2013). Instead, it is assessed 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. In that regard, the undersigned notes that over the past six years , the Sp ecial Processing Unit ( “ SPU ” ) has amassed a significant history regarding damages in SIRVA cases. In Vinocur v. Secretary of Health & Human Services , the undersigned explained that after f ive

- and

- one
- half years of SPU, 1, 4 05 SIRVA cases were resolved informally as of J anuary 1, 20 20

. No. 17

- 59 8V, 20 20 WL 1161173 , at * 9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. J an
. 31 , 20 20 ) . The undersigned noted that the median award for cases resolved via government proffer was $ 95 ,000.00 and the median award for cases resolved via stipulation was $7 0,000.00

. 8 Id. “ [T] o the extent prior informal resolutions are to be considered, the und ersigned finds that the overall history of informal resolution in SPU provides a more valuable context for assessing the damages in this case. ” Kim

7 From July 2014 until September 2015 , the Special Processing Unit (“ SPU ”) was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell. From October 2015 until October 2019, SPU cases , which include d the majority of SIRVA claims, were on the undersigned’s docket. The undersigned continues to review decisions issued in SPU cases, and remains familiar with the amounts awarded to petitioners in SIRVA cases in SPU.

8 The undersigned further stressed that the “typical” range of SIRVA awards

— i.e. the middle quartiles

— i s $ 75,044.86 to $122,038.99 for proffered cases and $ 50,000.00 to $92,500.00 for stipulated cases. Vinocur , 2020 WL 1161173, at *9. The total range for all informally resolved SIRVA claims

—

by proffer or stipulation

— spans from $ 25,000.00 to $1,845,047.00

. Id. at * 9 n.13 . Importantly, these amounts represent total compensation and typically do not separately list amounts intended to compensate for lost wages or expenses. The undersigned note s that t hese figures represent f

ive

- and

- one
- half years’ worth of past informal resolution of SIRVA claims and represent the bulk of prior SIRVA experience in the Vaccine Program. However, these figures are subject to change as additional cases resolve and do not dictate the result in this or an y future case. Nor do they dictate the amount of any future proffer or settlement.5

9 See Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 224V, 2017 WL 5507804 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 19, 2017); Dhanoa v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 15

- 1011V, 2018 WL 1221922 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2018); Marino v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 622V, 2018 WL 2224736 (Fed. Cl . Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2018); Collado , 2018 WL 34 33352 ; Knauss v. Sec ’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 1372V, 2018 WL 3432906 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 23, 2018); Kim , 2018 WL 39 91022 ; Dobbins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 854V, 2018 WL 4611267 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 15, 2018) ; Dirksen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 1461 V , 2018 WL 6293201 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 18, 2018); Cooper v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 1387V, 2018 WL 6288181 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 7, 2018) ; Knudson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 1004 V , 2018 WL 6293381 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 7, 2018) ; Reed v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 1670V, 2019 WL 1222925 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 1, 2019); Attig v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 1029V, 2019 WL 1749405 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 19, 2019); Binette v. S ec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 0731V, 2019 WL 1552620 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 20, 2019); Hooper , 2019 WL 1561519; Garrett v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 18

- 0490V, 2019 WL 2462953 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 8, 2019); Weber v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 0399V , 2019 WL 2521540 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 9, 2019); Bordelon v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 1892V, 2019 WL 2385896 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 24, 2019); Pruett v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 0561V, 2019 WL 3297083 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mst r. Apr. 30, 2019); Bruegging v. Sec’y of Health & Hu m. Servs. , No. 17

- 0261V, 2019 WL 2620957 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 13, 2019); Wallace v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 1472V, 2019 WL 4458393 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 27, 2019) ; Schandel v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 0225V, 2019 WL 5260368 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 8, 2019); Capasso v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 0014V, 2019 WL 5290524 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 10, 2019); Kelley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 2054V, 2019 WL 5555648 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 2, 2019); Kent v. S ec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 0073V, 2019 WL 5579493 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 7, 2019); Lucarelli v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 1721V, 2019 WL 5889235 (Fed. C l. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 21, 2019); Goring v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 16

- 1458V, 2019 WL 6049009 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 23, 2019); Nute v. Sec’y of Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 18

- 0140V, 2019 WL 6125008 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 6, 2019)

. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum . Servs., No. 17- 418V, 2018 WL 3991022, at *9 (F ed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 20, 2018). The hist ory of informal resolution in SPU “ reflects a substantial history of resolutions among man y differe nt cases with many differe nt counsel, ” a nd thus, “ the undersigned is persuaded that the full SPU history o f settlement and proffer conveys a better sense o f the overall a rms-length evaluation of the monetary v alue of pa in and suffering i n a t ypical SIRVA case.” Id. Additionally , afte r the inception of S PU in July 2 014, there were several reasoned decisions by the undersigned awarding damages in S IRVA c ases where th e parties were una ble to informally r esolve damages. 9 Typically, the primary point of dispute wa s the appropriate amount of compensati on for pa in and suffering.6

A. Determining Petitioner’s Award of Pain and Suffering in This Case The undersigned is mindful of previous cases and those cited by the parties in their respective memoranda . However, in determining an award in this case, the unde rsigned 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. Upon the undersigned’s review of the complete record and in consideration o f the undersigned’s experience evaluating SIRVA claims, the undersigned finds that an award of $ 200 ,000.0 0 for actual pain and suffering and $ 1, 2 0 0 .00 per year for h er life expectancy , reduced to net present value , for future pain and suffering is appropriate.

1. Past Pain and Suffering
In the undersigned’s experience, awareness of suffering is not typically a disputed issue in SIRVA cases. 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 matt er is not in dispute. Thus, based on the circumstances of this case, the undersigned determines that petitioner had full awareness of her suffering. The undersigned finds that petitioner experienced a severe SIRVA. P etitioner first reported left shoulder pain about twenty days following her flu vaccination . Thereafter, she reported constant pain . She had pain at rest, and she often described pain with activity as severe, with a rating of eight out of ten

. Petitione r’s pain did not improve following multiple steroid injections. Petiti o ner’s first surgery was an arthroscopic shoulder bursectomy with extensive subacromial debridement. Postoperatively, she underwent physical therapy, participated in a home exercise pr ogram, and was prescribed pain medication. However, s he continued to have pain. In July 2014, nine months after vaccination, petitioner had no relief of her pain. She continued to rate her pain as seve re, as a seven out of ten , and eight out of ten with activity. She underwent additional steroid injections, but the y did not relieve her pain or improve her range of motion. Approximately one year after vaccination, p etitioner sought a second opinion from Dr. Jeffrey Bradley. At that time, she had moderate to severe , sharp left shoulder pain , and limited range of motion. Dr. Bradley diagnosed petitioner with a “profound frozen shoulder.” Pet. Ex. 8 at 44. MRI performed November 7, 2014 showed adhesive c apsulitis, a small tear of the supraspinatus tendon, synovitis in the joint, and bursitis

. On December 4, 2014, petitioner underwent her second surgery, a left shoulder manipulation under general anesthesia, and arthroscopic debridement with capsular re lease and synovectomy. Postoperatively, petitioner required the narcotic O x yContin, and later Dil a udid , for severe pain. She reported pain ranging three to nine out of ten, depending on her use of medication.7 2. Future Pain and Suffering
Petitioner maintains that s he continues to suffer the effects of h er injury. In her affidavit, she states that she has pain while performing her job as a respiratory therapist. She described pain during emergencies, reaching, moving patients, performing CPR, and performing other aspects of her job. She avers that she will not be able to pursue her dream job of being a transport respiratory therapist. She also describes how she is not able to perform activities that she formerly enjoyed with her sons. In January 2015, petitione r continued to have pa in, and Dr

. Bradley e xplained that she was in the infla mmatory phase of adhesive capsulitis. She c ontinued physical therapy. Again, petitione r describe d constant pain that required narcotic pa in medication. She lost ra nge of mot ion, 10-20 degrees in a ll plane s of motion. Petitioner returned to physical therapy , and attended 34 sessions. She c ontinued to have constant shoulder pa in, limited range of motion with certain activities, and weakness of her left arm. Throughout 2015, petitioner ha d ongoing pa in. She ha d depression fr om her injury. Dr. Bradley prescribe d Lidoderm patches. Petitioner underwent another joint inj ection, but it did not relieve he r pain. On October 23, 2015, petitioner ha d an independent medical eva luation by Dr

. James A. Stuckmeyer. Dr. Stuckmeyer concluded tha t “ as a dire ct and proximate cause of her vaccination, petitioner had a “diagnosis of chronic inflammatory response, adhesive capsulitis with marked limi tations in range of motion and significant pa in, [and] . . . a 40% pe rmane nt partial disability to the lef t shoulder.” Pet. Ex

. 8 a t 210. Dr. Stuckmeyer furthe r noted tha t petitioner’ s prognosis wa s guarded. Additionally, the undersigned has considered the extent to which petit ioner’s injury impac ted her professional and personal life. Petitioner ’s affidavit details the a ffect her injury ha s had on he r care of infants a nd adults as a r espiratory therapist. She a lso credibly de scribed h er physical difficulties at home, wit h her family, a nd performing a ctivities of da ily li ving.
As describe d above, the undersigned finds that there is medical reco rd evidence that petitioner suffered moderate to severe pa in from the time of vacc ination through the medical evaluation by Dr . Stuckmeyer in October 2015, a period of a pproximately two years. The undersigned acknowledges that during thi s time, petitione r underwent lengthy a nd significant medical and surgical care a nd treatment, and suffered episodes of severe pa in a nd limited mobility.
To the undersigned’s knowledge, this is the only S IRVA case in the P rogram where a petitioner underwent two shoulder sur gerie s on top of multiple steroid injections and numerous physical therapy sessions. In short, petitioner ha d a more c omplicated clinical course than that seen in other SIRVA c ases. Because p etitioner ha d multiple shoulder surgeries, extensive treatment, and severe p ain for a protr acted pe riod of time, the undersigne d finds a hig her award for a ctual or past pain and suffering is warranted. T he refore, the undersigned finds that $200 ,000.00 represents an appropria te award for petitioner’s actual or pa st pain and suffering.8

An independent medica l examination performed by Dr. Stuckmeyer provides evidence that petitioner has sustained a pe rmanent injury a s a re sult of her vaccination. Dr

. Stuckmeyer opined that petitioner ha s a “ 40% pe rmanent partial disability to [her] left shoulder. ” Pet. Ex. 8 at 210.
There are severa l reasoned SIRVA da mages decisi ons where compensati on for futur e pain and suffering have b een awarded. See Dhanoa, 2018 WL 1221922 ; Curri v. Sec’y of Health & Hum . Servs., No. 17-432V, 2018 WL 6273562 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 31, 2018) ; Hooper, 2019 WL 1561519. I n Dhanoa, the special master a warded $10,000.00 f or pain and suffering for the year immediately foll owing the decision, but gave no award for subseque nt years. Dhanoa, 2018 WL 1221922 , at *7. I n Curri, considering petitioner’s significant arm pain, her permanently r educe d range o f motion, and the unique c hallenges petitioner fa ced in her day- to

day li fe, the special master foun d that $550.00 per year to be an appropriate a wa rd for petitioner’s future p ain and suffering. Curri, 2018 W L 627 3562, at *6. Here, petitioner’ s pain and suffering, disability , an d prognosis is sim ilar to that of the petitioner in Hooper. Hooper, 2019 WL 1561519

. I n Hooper, the petitioner file d medical rec ords from his orthopedist noting that Mr. Hooper ha d lost approximately 50% of his left arm function and was unlikely to improve. Id. a t *4. Dr. Stuckmeye r assesse d Ms. Schoonover with a pe rmanent partial rating of 40% , noted tha t he r symptoms had plateaued, a nd her future prognosi s was guarded. See Pet. Ex

. 8 a t 210. Howeve r, as respondent has noted, the sequelae of petitioner’s left shoulder injury ha s not be e n well doc umented in her med ical records since D r. Stuckmeyer’s examination in October 2015. While ther e is no evidence to suggest tha t Dr. Stuckmeyer’s assessment of petitioner’ s shoulde r disability h as changed, the re cords do not document ongoing complaint s so a s to support the amount of future da mages petitioner seeks.
Petitioner bears the burd en of proo f with respect to eac h element of compensation reque sted and the medical records are the most r eliable evidence of petitioner’s condition. Brewer, 1996 WL 14772 2, at *22-23; Shapiro v. Sec’y of Health & Hum . Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532, 537- 38 (2 011) (“ There is little doubt that the de cisional law in the vaccine area f avors medical records created contemporaneously with the e vents they de scribe o ver subsequent recollections.”). Based o n the petitioner’s medical rec ords, and the evaluation and opinions of Dr. Stuckmeye r, the undersigned finds that a n award of $1, 200.00 pe r year for h er life expectancy is an appropriate a ward for petitioner’s future pa in and suffering . This amount will be re duced to net present va lue.
IV. CONCLUSION In determining a n awa rd in this case, the undersigned does not re ly on a sin gle decision or case
. Rather, the und ersigned has reviewed the particular f acts and circumstances in this case, giving due c onsiderati on to the c ircumstances a nd damages in other case s cited by the parties and other re levant cases, as well a s her knowledge a nd experience adjudicating s imilar case s. In light of all of the a bove, and in consideration of the record as a whole , the unde rsigned finds that petitioner should be a warded $200,000.00 in compensation for actual pain and suffering, and $1,200.00 pe r year for h er lif e e xpectancy for futu re pa in and suffering , reduced to net present9

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Special Master

10 Petitioner’s life expectancy was calculated using the tables compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics. See Elizabeth Arias & Jiaquan Xu, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Nat’l Ctr. for Health Stat., United States Life Tables, 2017 , 68 Nat’l Vital Stat. Reps. 1, 3 tbl.A (2019).

11 See Dillenbeck v. Sec’y Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 17

- 428V, 2019 WL 4072069, at *1 5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2019) ( applying a one percent net discount rate for the first fifteen years, followed by a two percent net discount rate for the remaining years), aff’d in part , 147 Fed. Cl. 131 (2020); Curri , 2018 WL 6273562 , at *5 (same) ; Petronelli v. Sec’y Health & Hum

. Servs. , No. 12

- 285V, 2016 WL 3252082 , at *5

- 6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 12, 2016 ) ( analyz ing the appropriateness of a one percent discount for future damages ). value. Petitioner was born on September 15, 1968, and h er remaining li fe e xpectancy is approximately 3 3 years. 10 Thus, he r future pain and suff ering da mages tota l approximately $39,600.00.
The p arties are to file a joint status repor t no later than 30 d ays, on Friday, September 4, 2020 , converting the undersigned’s award of future p ain and su ffering to its net present value. If the parties are u nable to agree on the amount of the net p resent value of the future aw ard, the undersigned wil l use a one p ercent net d iscount rate f or the firs t fifteen ye ars, and a two percent net d iscount rate f or the remaining years. 1 1 Once th e iss ue of n et present value f

or the future aw ard is resolved, a damages decision w ill iss ue.