JACKSON v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-1061V
NICOLE JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: December 16, 2025
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Felicia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 23, 2022, Nicole Jackson filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine received on February 1, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”).
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2018).
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 11

2
The parties were unable to settle the claim, and have now fully briefed entitlement
and damages (ECF Nos. 29, 30, 31). For the reasons set forth herein, I find that Petitioner
is entitled to compensation, and I award damages for actual pain and suffering in the
amount of $55,000.00, plus reimbursement of a Medicaid lien in the amount of $2,017.67.
I. 	Factual Evidence
A. Medical Records
On February 1, 2021, Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in her right deltoid. Ex. 1
at 2. The vaccine was administered during a medical visit for a urinary tract infection
(“UTI”) and other health concerns. Ex. 8 at 5.
Five months later (July 8, 2021), Petitioner saw Dr. Tania Sadik for right shoulder
pain. Ex. 3 at 5. She explained that she had received a Tdap vaccine in February, and
her arm “became extremely painful immediately afterwards” and remained painful. Id. She
could not raise her arm greater than 60 degrees, and also had difficulty with internal and
external rotation. Id. On examination, she had pain with internal and external rotation. Id.
at 6. Petitioner was assessed with acute right shoulder pain, likely subdeltoid bursitis, and
referred for physical therapy (“PT”). Id.
Petitioner underwent a PT evaluation for her right shoulder two weeks later, on
July 22, 2021. Ex. 4 at 180. She complained of “R shoulder pain since February 2021
after receiving a Tdap shot in her R shoulder.” Id. She had “poor tolerance to all motion”
involving her right arm, with “significant fear avoidance behaviors.” Id. She explained that
the day after vaccination, her arm “swelled up and felt painful.” Id. at 182. Her movements
were “very guarded” and she was observed to grimace in pain in anticipation of right arm
movement. Id. at 180. She rated her pain five out of ten. Id. at 183. Petitioner was the
primary caretaker for a minor child with a disability, and reported difficulty with routine
daily activities. Id. at 182.
On examination, Petitioner’s right shoulder active range of motion (“ROM”) was 90
degrees in flexion (compared to 150 degrees on the left side), 50 degrees in extension
(versus 65 degrees on the left side), and 85 degrees in abduction (versus 160 on the left
side). Ex. 4 at 191. The therapist observed that “surprisingly the shoulder joint does not
appear frozen or restricted” and that her ROM was difficult to fully assess due to pain and
“may be self limited.” Id. at 180.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Sadik on August 23, 2021. Ex. 5 at 35. She had been
doing PT with minimal improvement, and continued to have pain when raising her arm or
lying on that side. Id. On examination, her right shoulder exhibited full ROM, with some
pain when raising her shoulder greater than 60 degrees, Id. Petitioner was given a
cortisone injection and advised to continue PT. Id. at 36.
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 11

3
Petitioner attended a total of ten PT sessions between July 22 and September 2,
2021. Ex. 4 at 93-180. After her September 2nd session, she self-discharged, explaining
that she would return to her doctor for imaging. Id. at 93, 94. Throughout this time, her
pain level generally fluctuated between four and six out of ten, although by the last session
it had improved to three. Id. at 93-180.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Sadik on September 9, 2021, reporting that she had
“some improvement” after the cortisone injection, but continued to have pain. Ex. 5 at 30.
Her physical therapist recommended two additional weeks of therapy, but Petitioner had
not been improving the last couple of weeks and wanted to determine what was wrong
with her arm. Id. On examination, her right shoulder ROM was diminished both actively
and passively. Id. at 31. Dr. Sadik now suspected adhesive capsulitis and ordered an
MRI. Id.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Sadik the following month (October 4, 2021) to review
the MRI, which showed adhesive capsulitis, a mild partial tear of a rotator cuff tendon,
and osteoarthritis. Ex. 5 at 25. Petitioner was referred for more PT and an orthopedic
consult. Id. at 26.
Petitioner underwent a second PT evaluation on November 11, 2021. Ex. 4 at 69.
She rated her pain four out of ten. Id. at 71. On examination, her right shoulder active
ROM was 122 degrees in flexion (compared to 180 degrees on the left), 90 degrees in
abduction (versus 180 degrees on the left), 45 degrees in internal rotation (versus 90
degrees on the left), and 30 degrees in external rotation (versus 90 degrees on the left).
Id. at 81.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Sadik’s office on March 15, 2022, reporting significant
improvement with PT. Ex. 5 at 13. She was given another cortisone injection. 3 Id. at 15.
Petitioner attended a total of ten PT sessions between November 11, 2021 and
March 31, 2022. Ex. 4 at 13-69; Ex. 10 at 12-14. She was discharged on March 31, 2022
because her insurance would not cover additional sessions. Ex. 10 at 13. At discharge,
she reported subjective improvements in her ability to use her right arm for usual daily
activities, but the therapist noted that this improvement was not reflected in her scores on
a functional evaluation, and that her ROM measurements had worsened, although her
pain level had improved. Id.
Petitioner saw Dr. Sadik for a wellness exam on July 5, 2022. Ex. 10 at 16. She
reported that her “[s]houlder is better at this time.” Id. On examination, she had full range
of motion without pain. Id. at 18.
3 The record of this visit states that she had received “at least 4 joint injections, which she gets every 3
months for recurrent right shoulder pain.” Ex. 5 at 13. However, the parties agree that Petitioner received a
total of two cortisone injections. ECF No. 29 at 13; ECF No. 30 at 8.
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 11

4
B. Other Evidence
Petitioner submitted a declaration in support of her claim. Ex. 7. She explains in it
that the morning after vaccination, her right shoulder “was in tremendous pain and it was
swollen and stiff.” Id. at ¶ 3. She could not lay on her right shoulder, and could not sleep
due to pain. Id. Initially, she treated with over-the-counter ibuprofen and cold compresses,
without improvement. Id. at ¶ 4. She then called the facility where she had received the
vaccine, and was told that pain could be a side effect of vaccination, and to return if it did
not improve. Id. at ¶ 5.
Petitioner continued self-treating with ibuprofen and cold compresses “as long as
I could.” Ex. 7 at ¶ 6. She avoided going to the doctor because she has a minor child with
health issues and a disability, and wanted to avoid COVID exposure. Id. Therefore, she
suffered until she “felt [she] really had to see the doctor.” Id. She called a doctor
recommended by a neighbor in June, but was unable to be seen until July. Id. at ¶ 7. In
the interim, the swelling reduced but she continued to have difficulties with routine daily
activities such as combing her hair and getting dressed. Id.at ¶ 8.
Petitioner submitted a social media post (along with a supplemental declaration
identifying the post and account as hers) dated May 28, 2021. Exs. 11, 12. In the post,
Petitioner states that her “arm still hurts from the tetanus shot I got back in February.” Ex.
12.
II. 	Factual Findings and Ruling on Entitlement
A. Legal Standards
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
preponderantly demonstrate all matters required under Section 11(c)(1), including the
factual circumstances surrounding his or her claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A). In making this
determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a whole. Section
13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or by medical
opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master 	must 	decide 	what 	weight 	to 	give 	evidence 	including 	oral 	testimony 	and
contemporaneous medical records). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration
as trustworthy evidence. 	The records contain information supplied to or by health
professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper
treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are
also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 11

5
To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a petitioner
may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Sanchez v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90–2808V,
1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). The Federal Circuit has
“reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete
as to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997
F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that a patient may not report every ailment,
or a physician may enter information incorrectly or not record everything he or she
observes).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received and the lack of
other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must establish that he or she suffered an injury
meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be
caused-in-fact by the vaccination he or she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The Vaccine
Act further includes a “severity requirement,” pursuant to which a petitioner demonstrate
that they “suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury,
or condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine . . . .” Section
11(c)(1)(D).
“[T]he fact that a Petitioner has been discharged from medical care does not
necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual effects from her alleged
injury.” Morine v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1013, 2019 WL 978825, at *4
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 23, 2019); see also Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 13-1000V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (“a discharge
from medical care does not necessarily indicate there are no residual effects”). “A
treatment gap . . . does not automatically mean severity cannot be established.” Law v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0699V, 2023 WL 2641502, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 23, 2023) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for
under three months and had met physical therapy goals but still lacked full range of motion
and experienced difficulty with certain activities, then returned to care nearly five months
later reporting stiffness and continuing restrictions in motion); see also Peeples v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No. 20-0634V, 2022 WL 2387749 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
26, 2022) (finding severity requirement met where Petitioner sought care for four months,
followed by fifteen-month gap); Silvestri v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-
1045V, 2021 WL 4205313 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 16, 2021) (finding severity
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his or her injury. Section
11(c)(1)(A)(B)(E).
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 5 of 11

6
requirement satisfied where Petitioner did not seek additional treatment after the five
month mark).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a flu vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation
(“QAI”) are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as 	shoulder 	pain 	and 	limited 	range 	of 	motion 	occurring 	after 	the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 6 of 11

7
be made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of
the injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id.
B. Parties’ Arguments on Entitlement
Petitioner asserts that treatment delays alone do not undermine a finding that a
claimant’s pain began within 48 hours. Petitioner’s Motion, filed May 20, 2024, at *7 (ECF
No. 29) (“Mot.”). Petitioner initially attempted to self-treat in an attempt to avoid COVID
exposure to protect her minor child. Id. at *9. When she did seek treatment, she
consistently described pain that began within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. at *8. And she
did not have any other medical appointments in the time between vaccination and her
first care for shoulder pain. Id. at *9 n. 1.
Respondent argues that the record does not preponderantly support a finding that
Petitioner’s pain began within 48 hours, emphasizing that she first reported arm pain in a
late May 2021 social media post, nearly four months after vaccination. Respondent’s
Response, filed July 30, 2024, at *5 (ECF No. 30) (“Resp.”). And her first treatment was
not until over five months after vaccination. Id.
Although Petitioner asserts she delayed seeking care due to fear of COVID
exposure, Petitioner received the Tdap vaccine when she sought care for another
concern – a UTI. Resp. at *5. Respondent thus argues that “[i]f petitioner was willing to
risk exposure to COVID-19 for treatment of a painful urinary condition, it is reasonable to
expect that she would have taken a similar risk for treatment of her allegedly painful right
shoulder.” Id. Alternatively, Petitioner could have called or messaged her primary care
provider, or requested a telehealth appointment. Id. That she did not report pain or seek
care for months “is strong evidence that her pain did not begin within forty-eight hours of
vaccination.” Id.
Petitioner does not dispute that she delayed seeking care, but asserts that when
she did, and thereafter, she consistently reported pain immediately after vaccination.
Petitioner’s Reply, filed Aug. 12, 2024, at *1 (ECF No. 31) (“Reply”). Id. She asserts that
her earlier decision to seek treatment for a UTI is not relevant to the onset of her shoulder
pain. Id.
C. Factual Findings on Onset
The evidence supports a finding that Petitioner’s shoulder pain likely began within
48 hours of vaccination. Although she delayed seeking care for five months, when she
did 	seek 	treatment 	she 	consistently 	related 	her 	pain 	to 	vaccination. 	At 	her 	first
appointment, she stated that her arm became extremely painful immediately after
vaccination. Ex. 3 at 5. At her first PT evaluation, she complained of pain since vaccination
as well as swelling the next day. Ex. 4 at 180, 182. And Petitioner has credibly explained
that she tried to avoid seeing a doctor to protect her minor child, and there is no evidence
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 7 of 11

8
that she sought treatment for other problems during the time between vaccination and
her first appointment for her shoulder pain.
I am not persuaded by Respondent’s suggestion that Petitioner’s decision to seek
treatment (and thus risk COVID exposure) for a UTI casts doubt on whether she was in
fact experiencing shoulder pain in the months between vaccination and her first treatment.
The decision whether, and when, to seek medical care for a condition depends on the
particular facts and circumstances. I find it reasonable that a person could determine that
one painful condition (particularly one involving a likely infection that could result in
greater problems if left untreated) could not wait, while deciding to defer care for a
different painful condition that might resolve with time.
D. Factual Findings on Remaining SIRVA QAI Criteria and Remaining
Statutory Requirements
The remaining QAI and statutory requirements are not disputed, and I find that
they are satisfied. The record does not contain preponderant evidence that Petitioner had
a history of left shoulder pain or any other condition that would explain her post-
vaccination symptoms. Ex. 8 at 3-7; Ex. 2. She exhibited reduced ROM, and her pain and
ROM limitations were limited to the vaccinated shoulder. Ex. 3 at 5-35; Ex. 4 at 93-180.
She received a covered vaccine in the United States. Ex. 1 at 2. She experienced residual
effects of her injury for more than six months. Ex. 5 at 35. And she states that she never
received an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury, nor has she filed a civil
action. Ex. 7 at ¶ 13.
Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that all Table
SIRVA and QAI requirements are established. Further, she has established all statutory
requirements for entitlement. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
III. 	Damages
A. Legal Standard
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 Section II of Matthews v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 22-1396V, 2025 WL 2606607 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 13,
2025).
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 $250,000.00.” 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 & Human 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
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 8 of 11

9
suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3) duration of
the suffering.5
B. Parties’ Damages Arguments
Petitioner seeks a pain and suffering award of $70,000.00. Mot. at *1. In support
of her proposed award, she cites Hamilton, Celuch, and Welch, involving awards of
$60,000.00, $70,000.00, and $55,000.00, 	respectively.6 Id. at *11-12. Respondent
proposes a pain and suffering award of no more than $30,000.00. 	Resp. at *8.
Respondent relies on Ramos and Templin,7 both involving pain and suffering awards of
$40,000.00.8 Id. at *6.
Petitioner asserts that her injury and course of treatment are “objectively more
severe” than the Welch petitioner, who presented with mild pain and attended six PT
sessions, and that she should receive damages similar to Celuch. Mot. at *12-13.
Although Petitioner initially delayed seeking treatment (as did the Welch petitioner), when
she did seek care she complained of an “extremely painful” shoulder injury. Id. Petitioner
considers her MRI findings significant, and asserts she had greater ROM limitations than
the Celuch petitioner. Id. Overall, she attended 20 PT sessions and received two
cortisone injections, and was discharged from PT 14 months after vaccination due to lack
of insurance coverage. Id. at *13.
Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s shoulder injury was mild, with conservative
treatment of 20 PT sessions and two cortisone injections over a 14-month period. Resp.
at *8. That Petitioner delayed seeking care for over five months indicates that her pain
was “at the very least, tolerable,” and Respondent views the MRI findings as mild. Id. at
*8-9. Respondent argues that Ramos and Templin are two cases involving mild SIRVAs
that are very similar to Petitioner’s, although in his view a comparable award is not
appropriate given that Petitioner had not (at the time of briefing) established onset within
5 I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V, 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May
14, 2013) (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y of Health & Human 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)).
6 Hamilton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-0346V, 2023 WL 4635923 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June
14, 2023); Celuch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0544V, 2021 WL 2368137(Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 10, 2021); Welch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0660V, 2021 WL 4612654 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 2, 2021).
7 Both parties cite facts concerning Templin that are not contained in the Decision in that case, which are
therefore not useful in analyzing this case,
8 Ramos v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1005V, 2021 WL 688576 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 4,
2021); Templin v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 21-1446V, 2024 WL 1675852 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 18, 2024).
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 9 of 11

10
48 hours or, “at the very least, the evidence demonstrates that petitioner’s pain was
tolerable for five months.” Id. at *12.
Petitioner replies that Ramos and Templin are not comparable to her case. Reply
at *3. Petitioner views Ramos as “one of the mildest cases in the program,” with the
claimant’s only treatment consisting of 11 PT sessions, and a pain rating of zero within
three months of his initial visit. Id. Petitioner emphasizes that she reported severe pain
and reduced ROM at her initial visits and had significant findings on her MRI. Id.
C. Appropriate Compensation for Pain and Suffering
Having reviewed the record and briefing, I find that Petitioner’s injury is most similar
to Welch and Ramos. Ms. Jackson had an injury of similar duration to the petitioners in
those cases, and all of them delayed seeking treatment. Petitioner’s treatment delay is
notably longer than any of the cited cases. Ms. Jackson and the Ramos petitioner had
similar ROM restrictions. All treated conservatively, although Ms. Jackson underwent
more treatment than the Welch or Ramos petitioners, who had less PT and did not receive
any cortisone injections. In light of the record evidence, including Petitioner’s initial
treatment delay, I find that an award of $55,000.00 for pain and suffering is appropriate.
Conclusion
For all of the reasons discussed above and based on consideration of the record
as a whole, I GRANT Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record, and find that
Petitioner suffered an injury that meets the definition for a Table SIRVA and is
entitled to compensation. I find that $55,000.00 represents a fair and appropriate
amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering. Additionally, I
find that Petitioner is entitled to $2,017.67 for reimbursement of a Medicaid lien.
Therefore, I award Petitioner the following:
x 	A lump sum payment of $55,000.00 for pain and suffering,9 to be paid through
an 	ACH 	deposit 	to 	Petitioner’s 	counsel’s 	IOLTA 	account 	for 	prompt
disbursement to Petitioner; and
9 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)).
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 10 of 11

11
x 	A 	lump 	sum 	payment 	of 	$2,017.67,10 	representing 	compensation 	for
satisfaction of a Medicaid lien, to be paid through an ACH deposit to
Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to:
Optum
ATTN: Amanda Bates, Recovery Specialist
Federal Tax Identification Number 41-1858498
Optum Event Number: 93585178
P.O. Box 182643
Columbus, OH 43218
These amounts represent 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.11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10 The parties agree that this sum is reimbursable. Joint Status Report, filed Dec. 15, 2025 (ECF No. 39).
11 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.
Case 1:22-vv-01061-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/15/26 Page 11 of 11