In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1335V

UNPUBLISHED

LINDSEY DENWIDDIE,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: September 14, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint 

Stipulation on Damages; Influenza 

(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(SIRVA)

Heather Varney Menezes, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., Manchester, NH, for petitioner.

Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On September 26, 2017, Lindsey Denwiddie 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 from a shoulder injury related to 

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

was caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccine she received on October 2, 2014. Petition at 

¶¶ 3, 19; Stipulation, filed at Sept. 11, 2020, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleges she 

received the vaccination in the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her 

injury for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil 

action or received compensation for her injury, alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶

3, 14-16; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA 

Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any 

other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related 

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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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

(2012).
2

Nevertheless, on September 11, 2020, 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 $130,000.00 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.