# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-678V Filed: August 19, 2015 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SHIRLEY DARLENE PARDUE, *

* Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Adhesive * Capsulitis; Impingement Syndrome; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Subacromial Bursitis; Special AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit (“SPU”)

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Danny Ellis, Massey & Associates, PC, Chattanooga, TN, for petitioner. Claudia Gangi, U.S. Department of Just ice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON J OINT STIPULATION 1

Vowell , Chief Special Master:

On July 30, 2014, Shirley Darlene Pardue filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compens ation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Progr am”]. Petitioner alleges that as the result of an influenza [“flu”] vaccination on September 29, 2012, she suffered adhesive capsulitis, possible impingement syndrome, and subacromial bursitis of the right shoulder. Petition, ¶ 8; Stipulation, filed August 18, 2015, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effe cts of this injury for mo re than six months, and has received no prior award or settlement for this injury. Petition, ¶¶ 9, 11; Stipulation, ¶¶ 4- 5. “Respondent denies that the flu immunization is the caus e of petitioner’s adhesive capsulitis, possible impingem ent syndrome, and subacromial bursitis of the right shoulder, any other injury, or her current disabilities.” Stipulation, ¶ 6.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the United States Court of Federal Clai ms' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Sta t. 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 mate rial 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to se ttle the case. Sti pulation, ¶ 7. On August 18, 2015, the parties filed a joint st ipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to pay petitioner a lump sum of $65,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation, ¶ 8. This amount repr esents compensation for all damages that would be availabl e under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id

.

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attac hed hereto, and award compensation in the

amount and on the terms set forth therein. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, t he clerk of the court is di rected to enter judgment in

accordance with this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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 filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.