In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-1452V 

Filed: October 12, 2017 

UNPUBLISHED 

LAUREL POWELL,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Damages Decision Based on 

Stipulation; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Curtis Webb, Twin Falls, ID, for petitioner. 

Mallori Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On November 3, 2016, Laurel Powell (“petitioner”) 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 alleges that “[t]he

trivalent influenza vaccination that she received on October 27, 2015 caused her to 

develop a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA).” Petition at ¶ 2; 

see also Stipulation, filed Oct. 11, 2017, at ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner adds that she also hit 

her upper right arm and broke her right wrist after her injured left arm gave out while 

lifting herself out of the bathtub approximately one month later. Petition at ¶ 14. She 

seeks compensation related to her SIRVA and subsequent fracture of her right wrist. Id.

at 5, ¶ 22. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccination in the United 

States, has suffered the residual effects of her injuries for more than six months and her 

pain appears to be permanent, and has never filed a civil action or received 

 

1

 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). 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 undersigned 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 (2012). 
2

compensation for her injuries, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 21, 25-26; see 

also Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters. 

On April 27, 2017, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case for her SIRVA of the left shoulder 

and its related sequelae. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, 6. A ruling on 

entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. 

Ruling on Entitlement, issued Apr. 27, 2017. 

On October 11, 2017, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation. In the 

stipulation, “[r]espondent agrees that petitioner suffered a SIRVA but denies that the flu 

vaccine caused any other injury and further denies that her current disabilities are a 

sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. The parties stipulate that 

petitioner shall receive the following compensation: 

A lump sum of $87,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 

Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of 

damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id. 

The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation. 

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master 

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.