Court Opinion

ID: 4521711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-02 12:01:42.465262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:19.339441
License: Public Domain

CORRECTED

    In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 18-1642V
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    CHRISTOPHER W. LINDBLOOM,                                 Chief Special Master Corcoran

                         Petitioner,                          Filed: February 28, 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)

Glenn Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.

Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

        On October 24, 2018, Christopher W. Lindbloom 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 his October 20, 2017 influneza (“flu”)
vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.

        On February 27, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On February 27, 2020, Respondent filed a Rule
4(c) Report and Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner
should be awarded $57,643.62 (representing $143.62 in compensation for
unreimbursable expenses and $57,500.00 in compensation for actual and projected

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  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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).
pain and suffering). Proffer at 3. 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 $57,643.62 (representing $143.62 in compensation for unreimbursable
expenses and $57,500.00 in compensation for actual and projected pain and
suffering) 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