In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-180V

(not to be published)

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

MISTY HERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

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

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Filed: July 11, 2022

Decision by Stipulation; Damages;

Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder 

Injury Related to Vaccine Administration 

(“SIRVA”).

Jeffrey Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner

Nancy Tinch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On January 31, 2019, Misty Hernandez (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine 

Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges she suffered from a Table shoulder injury related 

to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received

on September 15, 2016. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated July 6, 2022 (ECF No. 54); see also Petition. 

Respondent denies “that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury ; denies that the fl 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted 

on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As 

provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of 

certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 

days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret 

or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files 

or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” 

Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. 

No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter 

“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the 

pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged SIRVA, or any other injury; and denies that petitioner’s current 

condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, 

while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed July 6, 2022 that the 

issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner 

compensation. 

I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation 

is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth 

therein.

The stipulation awards: 

1. A lump sum of $42,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and

2. A lump sum of $948.07, representing reimbursement of a Medicaid lien for services 

rendered to petitioner by the State of Texas, Cigna Medicare STAR+PLUS, in the form of 

a check payable jointly to petitioner and The Rawlings Company:

The Rawlings Company

ATTN: PS AutoHx

Reference No.: 119693643

P.O. Box 2000

La Grange, KY 40031-2000

Petitioner agrees to endorse this check payable to the Rawlings Company. 

Stipulation ¶ 8. This award represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to 

Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of 

the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/ Katherine E. Oler

Katherine E. Oler

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice 

renouncing their right to seek review.