# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-683V Filed: November 13, 2015 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REBECCA GUY, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Damages * Decision Based on Proffer; * Concession; Influenza (“Flu”)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccinat ion; Shoulder Injury Related AND HUMAN SERVICES, * to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Gordon Elliot Shemin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washingt on, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On June 30, 2015, petitioner filed a petit ion for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that the infl uenza [“flu”] vaccination that she received on September 17, 2014 caused her to su ffer a shoulder injury. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processi ng Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 12, 2015, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 1 (ECF No. 18). Specifically, respondent “has co ncluded that petitioner’s allege d injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccination adminis tration (SIRVA), and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she rece ived on September 18, 2014.” Id. at 3. Respondent

1 Because this unpublished ruling and decision contai ns a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the Unit ed States Court of Federal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 undersigne d will redact such materi al 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 further indicates that “petit ioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation
under the Act.” Id. at 4.

Additionally, “[b]ased upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $7 5,000.00” in compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 4. Re spondent represents that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. Further, based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages.

Pursuant to the terms stated in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 4

, the undersigned awards petiti oner a lump sum payment of $75,000.00 in the form of a check pa yable to petitioner, Rebecca Guy. 3 This amount represents compensatio n for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).

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

decision. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

3 “Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, t he parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppos e any award for future medical expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.” Respondent ’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 4.

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.