Court Opinion

ID: 7798845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-08 17:01:53.434355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:51.887926
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                   OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 20-2021V
                                          UNPUBLISHED

    JOHN M. LEWIS,                                              Chief Special Master Corcoran

                         Petitioner,                            Filed: June 28, 2022
    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)

Scott B. Taylor, Urban & Taylor, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner.

Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                                 DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

       On December 29, 2020, John M. Lewis 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”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on or about
November 5, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered
in the United States, he suffered the effects of his condition for more than six months, and
he has never received compensation in the form of an award or settlement, or filed a civil
action, for his vaccine-related injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 20, 23. The case was assigned to
the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

     On June 28, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On June 27, 2022, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
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   Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012).
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $60,000.00. Proffer at
5-6. 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 $60,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).

       The Clerk of 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