CORRECTED

In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-1279V

UNPUBLISHED

SALINA M. FLORES,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 29, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint 

Stipulation on Damages; Influenza 

(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(SIRVA)

John Cantrell, Law Office of John R. Cantrell, Hammond, IN, for Petitioner.

Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On September 28, 2020, Salina M. Flores filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on or about

September 29, 2017. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed August 29, 2022, at ¶¶ 2-4. Petitioner 

further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she experienced 

the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and there has been no prior 

award or settlement of a civil action for damages arising out of the alleged vaccine injury. 

Petition at ¶¶ 2, 10-12; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained 

a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury 

or any other injury; and denies that petitioner’s current condition is a sequela of a vaccinerelated injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the 

internet. 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

Nevertheless, on August 29, 2022, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, 

stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation 

reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following 

compensation:

A lump sum of $40,000.00 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 Section 15(a). Id. 

I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of 

a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court is directed to 

enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

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.