In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-963V

Filed: March 13, 2015

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

ANDREA THOMPSON, *

*

Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;

v. * Hepatitis B Vaccine; Shoulder Injury

* Related to Vaccine Administration

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (SIRVA); Adhesive Capsulitis (Frozen

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Shoulder); Special Processing Unit

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Francisco Gonzalez, Esq., Law Office of Frank Gonzalez, Great Neck, NJ for petitioner.

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

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On October 8, 2014, Andrea Thompson 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”]. Petitioner alleged that she suffered injuries including 

neuropathy and adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder) which were caused by the 

Hepatitis B vaccination she received on January 12, 2012. Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 23, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled 

to compensation for her shoulder injury related to vaccine administration [“SIRVA”].

3

 On 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 

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, 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).

3 Respondent conceded that petitioner was entitled to compensation for her SIRVA but did not concede 

that the Hepatitis B vaccine caused neuropathy, maintaining “that the evidence is insufficient to establish 

that the Hep B vaccine caused a neurologic injury, such as neuropathy with ongoing denervation, as 

alleged in the petition.” Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, filed Feb. 18, 2015, at 1-2 & 2 n.1. Petitioner’s 

counsel confirmed by email to the OSM staff attorney managing this case that he had discussed the
2

March 13, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation [“Proffer”]

indicating petitioner should be awarded $75,240.00 “represent[ing] all elements of 

compensation to which petitioner would be entitled.” Proffer at 1. According to 

respondent’s Proffer, petitioner agrees to this proposed amount. Id. at 1-2. Petitioner’s 

counsel also confirmed by email communication to the OSM staff attorney managing the 

case that petitioner agrees to the amount proposed in the Proffer.

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

sum payment of $75,240.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Andrea 

Thompson. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be 

available under § 300aa-15(a).

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

decision.4

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master

 

matter with respondent’s counsel and petitioner had no objection to a ruling based on respondent’s 

concession as described in the Rule 4(c) report. See Ruling on Entitlement, issued Feb. 23, 2015, at 2 

n.3. Thus, I issued my ruling on that basis. 

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

renouncing the right to seek review.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

____________________________________

)

ANDREA THOMPSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

) No. 14-963V

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 

$75,240.00, 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 $75,240.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 

Petitioner agrees. 

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Acting 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 and future pain and suffering. 

 

Case 1:14-vv-00963-UNJ Document 21 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 2
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI

Deputy Director

Torts Branch, Civil Division

MICHAEL P. MILMOE

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: March 13, 2015 

2

Case 1:14-vv-00963-UNJ Document 21 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 2