In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1109V 

(not to be published) 

 

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

STACY SMITH, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

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

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Filed: April 26, 2022 

Entitlement; Decision by Proffer; 

Damages; Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine; 

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (“SIRVA”). 

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

Austin J. Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent 

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On July 30, 2019, Stacy Smith (“Petitioner”), filed a petition seeking compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1. 

Petitioner alleged that she suffered from a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration 

(“SIRVA”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 8, 2018. See Proffer 

at 1, dated April 22, 2022 (ECF No. 45); see also Petition. 

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted 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. 
On April 1, 2022, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report advising that “he will 

not defend this case on other grounds during further proceedings before the Office of Special 

Masters,” but reserved his right to appeal the factual finding. Amended Resp’t’s Rep. at 2. 

Respondent indicated that Petitioner “has otherwise satisfied the legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Vaccine Act.” Id. Respondent requested that I decide the issue of 

entitlement based on the existing record. Id.

That same day, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding Petitioner entitled to vaccine 

compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 42. 

Respondent filed a proffer (ECF No. 45) on April 22, 2022, agreeing to issue the following 

payments: 

1. A Lump Sum 

A lump sum of $121,483.61, which amount represents pain and suffering ($115,000.00) 

and past unreimbursable expenses ($6,483.61) related to Petitioner’s SIRVA injury. 

Proffer at 2. This amount 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. 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

STACY SMITH, 

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, 

Respondent.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. 19-1109V 

Special Master Oler

ECF

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

On July 30, 2019, Stacy Smith (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 34 (“Vaccine Act” or 

“Act”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), 

as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of an influenza vaccine on 

October 2, 2018. Petition at 1. On April 1, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

(“respondent”) filed an Amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Special 

Master Oler’s factual findings that the onset of petitioner’s right arm pain began the day of 

vaccination, and the medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute that 

petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Amended 

Rule 4(c) Report at 6-7; ECF No. 41. That same day, Special Master Oler issued a Ruling on 

Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her shoulder injury 

related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). 1 Ruling on Entitlement; ECF No. 42. 

 

1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein. 

Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, 

respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent 
2 

I. Items of Compensation 

A. Pain and Suffering

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

$115,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses

Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable 

expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be 

awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $6,483.61. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees.

These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled 

under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. 

II. Form of the Award

Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. 

Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a 

lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and 

the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $121,483.61, in the form of 

a check payable to petitioner.

 

reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s 

April 1, 2022 entitlement decision.

2 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 lost earnings 

and future pain and suffering.
3 

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO

Acting Director

Torts Branch, Civil Division

HEATHER L. PEARLMAN

Deputy Director

Torts Branch, Civil Division

LARA A. ENGLUND

Assistant Director

Torts Branch, Civil Division

/s/ AUSTIN J. EGAN 

Austin J. Egan

Trial Attorney

Torts Branch, Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044-0146

Tel: (202) 451-7479

Austin.J.Egan@usdoj.gov

Date: April 22, 2022