PARSONS v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1651V
APRIL PARSONS,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: December 19, 2025
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 23, 2020, April Parsons 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 Table injury – a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) - as a result of her receipt of a flu vaccine on
September 25, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters. Because the parties could not informally resolve the
issue of damages – specifically pain and suffering (the only damages element at issue) -
they were ordered to file briefs setting forth their respective arguments and were notified
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 1:20-vv-01651-UNJ Document 61 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 2

2
that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which took place
on December 19, 2025.
Petitioner seeks an award of $70,000.00 in compensation for Petitioner’s pain and
suffering. Respondent recommends an award of $36,000.00. At the December 19, 2025,
hearing I issued an oral ruling on damages constituting my findings of fact and
conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A). 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 I and II of Timberlake
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1905V, 2025 WL 721730, at *1-3 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Feb. 19, 2025) 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 $53,000.00
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering.3
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum of $53,000.00 to be paid through
an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
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 & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 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)).
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.
Case 1:20-vv-01651-UNJ Document 61 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 2