Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2016 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0205V
Filed: November 19, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
****************************
DAVID G. SMITH, *
*
Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)
*
Respondent. *
*
****************************
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On March 2, 2015, 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on
November 8, 2013. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed 11/19/2015, ¶ 4. Petitioner further
alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
Stipulation¶ 4. “Respondent denies that the flu immunization is the cause of petitioner’s
alleged SIRVA and/or any other injury.” Stipulation, ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on November 19, 2015, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation (attached as Appendix A), stating that a decision should be entered awarding
compensation. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the
decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
1
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended
at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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.
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).
1
The parties stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
A lump sum of $107,500.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Stipulation, ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages
that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id.
The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3
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.
2