# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 865 V

Filed: November 10, 2015

Unpublished

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

GEORGETTE TAYLOR

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Damages

* Decision Based on Proffer;

* Concession; Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Administration (“SIRVA”); Special

* Processing Unit (“SPU”)

Respondent. *

*

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

Amber D. Wilson

, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Traci R. Patton , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On August 12, 2015

, Georgette Taylor (“ p etitioner ”) 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”)

. Peti tioner alleges that the

influenza (“flu”) vaccination that s he received on September 23, 2014, caused h er to

suffer a shoulder injury

. Petit ion at 1

- 4

. The case was assigned to the Special

Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 9, 2015

, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) R eport and Proffer on

Damages ( “ Report and Proffer ” ) in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to

compensa tion in this case. Report and Proffer at 1 . Specifically, respondent

“ concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to

vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ), and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she

received on September 23, 2014. ” Id. at 3

. Additionally, respondent “ did not identify

1 Because this unpublished ruling and decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this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, 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 pri vacy. 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. He reinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).any other causes for petitioner ’ s SIRVA, and records show that she has suffered the

sequ e la of her injury for more than six months. ” Id. Petitioner has therefore “ satisfied

all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. ” Id. at 4.

B ased upon the evidence of record, respondent p roffer s that petitioner should be

awarded $ 100,963.12 in compensation

. R eport and Proffer at 4

. Respondent

represents that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence o f record

, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

. Further, based on

the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award

as stated in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages.

Pursuant to the terms stated in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on

Damages at 4

, the undersigned award s petitioner a lump sum payment of

$ 100,963.12 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Georgette Taylor

. 3 Th is

amount represent s 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master

3

“ 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, future

pain and suffering, and future lost wages. ” R eport and Proffer at 4

, f n

. 1

.

4 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.