Court Opinion

ID: 4306169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-22 16:01:33.993364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:50.390677
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-0047V
                                      Filed: April 12, 2018
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    ANGELA TURNER,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                        Petitioner,                          Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
    v.                                                       Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
                                                             Injury Related to Vaccine
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                  Administration (SIRVA)
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On January 12, 2017, petitioner 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 as a result of
an influenza vaccination received on October 15, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On April 12, 2018, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation for her shoulder injury. In his Rule 4(c) Report filed on April 12, 2018,
respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner
should be awarded $50,633.50, representing compensation for pain and suffering
($50,000.00) and past reimbursable expenses ($633.50). Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer
at 4. Respondent indicated that this amount reflects that any award for projected pain
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2National 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).
and suffering has been reduced to net present value. Id. at 3-4. In the Proffer,
respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Based on the
record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated
in the Proffer.

       Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner
a lump sum payment of $50,633.50, consisting of $50,000.00 for pain and
suffering and $633.50 for past unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check
payable to petitioner, Angela Turner. 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. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                          s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          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.

                                                      2