In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-0206V

Filed: June 30, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CARIN ING-MARIE MALKIN, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza (“flu”) vaccine; Shoulder Injury

v. * Related to Vaccine Administration

* (“SIRVA”); Damages Decision Based

* on Proffer; Special Processing Unit

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana L. Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.

Ann D. Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On March 2, 2015, Carin Ing-Marie Malkin filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleges that as a result of an Influenza (“flu”) 

vaccination on September 30, 2013, petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 30, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report [“Res. Report”], in which 

she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Res. Report at 3. 

Specifically, respondent “has concluded that a preponderance of evidence establishes 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be 

posted 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, 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006).

 
that the injury to petitioner’s right shoulder was caused-in-fact by the administration of 

her September 30, 2013, flu vaccine, and that [the] injury is not due to factors unrelated 

to [that] administration.” Id. Respondent “recommends that compensation be awarded 

under the terms of the Vaccine Act for petitioner’s right shoulder injury.” Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation.

Additionally, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”)

detailing compensation for all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be 

entitled under §15(a). According to respondent’s Proffer, petitioner agrees to the 

proposed award of compensation. 

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump 

sum payment of $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available 

under §15(a).

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.3

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.

2

 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

____________________________________

)

CARIN ING-MARIE MALKIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

) No. 15-206V

v. ) Chief Special Master Vowell 

) ECF

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ) 

HUMAN SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________) 

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation

Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded 

$70,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled 

under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).1

 Petitioner agrees. 

II. Form of the Award

The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made 

through a lump sum payment of $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 

Petitioner agrees. 

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

RUPA BHATTACHARYYA

Director

Torts Branch, Civil Division

 1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court 

for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical 

expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering. 
2

VINCENT J. MATANOSKI

Deputy Director

Torts Branch, Civil Division

GLENN A. MACLEOD

Senior Trial Counsel

Torts Branch, Civil Division

s/ ANN D. MARTIN 

ANN D. MARTIN

Senior Trial Attorney

Torts Branch, Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 146

Benjamin Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-0146

Tel.: (202) 307-1815

DATED: June 30, 2015