Court Opinion

ID: 4639503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-12-04 14:01:52.211233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:58:57.283616
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                   OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 19-287V
                                          UNPUBLISHED

    JUDITH WALTERS,                                             Chief Special Master Corcoran

                         Petitioner,                            Filed: August 20, 2020
    v.
                                                                Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                     Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                             Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
                                                                Injury Related to Vaccine
                         Respondent.                            Administration (SIRVA)

Yuri Jelokov, Farrish Johnson Law Office, Mankato, MN, for petitioner.

Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                 DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

       On February 22, 2019, Judith Walters 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 left upper extremity injures that
resulted from the administration and adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination
received on September 20, 2016. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was
administered within the United States, she experienced the residual effects of her injuries
for more than six months, and there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action
for damages as a result of her condition. Id. at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

      On August 20, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for Petitioner’s SIRVA. On August 20, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule

1  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 E-
Government 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).
4(c) report and proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should
be awarded $125,180.77. Proffer at 5. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that
Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

      Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum
payment of $125,180.77 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a).

       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.

                                                    2