In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0366V

UNPUBLISHED

GERALD HINES,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: March 2, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint 

Stipulation on Damages; Influenza 

(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

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

respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On March 11, 2019, Gerald Hines 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) which meets the Table definition for SIRVA, or in the alternative 

was caused-in-fact or significantly aggravated by the influenza vaccine he received on 

September 15, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 8; Stipulation, filed at March 2, 2021, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. 

Petitioner further alleges he received the vaccine in the United States, that he suffered 

the residual effects of his SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither he nor any 

other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his SIRVA. Petition at ¶¶

1, 8-9; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that [P]etitioner suffered the onset of his 

alleged SIRVA within the Table timeframe; denies that the flu vaccine caused or 

significantly aggravated [P]etitioner’s alleged shoulder injury or any other injury and 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

further denies that his current disabilities are a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” 

Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

Nevertheless, on March 2, 2021, 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 the 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.