In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1075V

Filed: June 30, 2015

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

KAREN COMEIRO, *

*

Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;

* Trivalent Influenza or Flu Vaccine;

* Injection Site Injury 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Erika Todd, Esq., Arrowood Peters LLP, Boston, MA for petitioner.

Justine Walters, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On November 4, 2014, Karen Comeiro 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 alleged that she suffered injuries to include 

“severe blistering and disfigurement at the injection site” which were caused by the 

trivalent flu vaccine she received on October 8, 2013.3 The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 

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 

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 (2006).

3 Petition at 1. Initially, petitioner also alleged that she suffered an adverse effect on her rheumatoid 

arthritis (an ongoing condition) because she was forced to abstain from taking at least one of her 

rheumatoid arthritis medications which was interfering with the healing of the injection site injury. Petition 

at 4-5. Respondent disputed vaccine causation for this additional injury. See Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report [“Res. Report”] at 2, 9-10. On March 2, 2015, petitioner’s counsel informed the OSM staff attorney 

managing this case by email that petitioner had agreed to narrow her claim to exclude any claim of 

aggravation of her rheumatoid arthritis. 
2

On March 2, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to 

compensation. On June 30, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation 

[“Proffer”] indicating petitioner should be awarded $85,000.00. Proffer at 1. According 

to respondent’s Proffer, petitioner agrees to this proposed amount. Id.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump 

sum payment of $85,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Karen 

Comeiro. This amount represents 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

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master

 

4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

)

KAREN COMEIRO, )

)

Petitioner, )

) No. 14-1075V

v. ) Chief Special Master Vowell

) SPU

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ) ECF

HUMAN SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I. Items of Compensation

Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded 

$85,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).1

 Petitioner agrees. 

II. Form of the Award

The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made 

through a lump sum payment of $85,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 

Petitioner agrees. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

RUPA BHATTACHARYYA

Director

Torts Branch, Civil Division

 1 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 lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.

Case 1:14-vv-01075-UNJ Document 20 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 2
2

VINCENT J. MATANOSKI

Deputy Director

Torts Branch, Civil Division

ALTHEA W. DAVIS

Senior Trial Counsel 

Torts Branch, Civil Division

 s/ Justine Walters

JUSTINE WALTERS

Trial Attorney

Torts Branch, Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-0146

Tel.: (202) 307-6393

DATE: June 30, 2015

Case 1:14-vv-01075-UNJ Document 20 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 2