Court Opinion

ID: 4252572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-07 21:04:23.823301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:21.800113
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-0001V
                                   Filed: November 14, 2017
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    SUSAN NORTH,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
                        Petitioner,                          Stipulation on Damages;
    v.                                                       Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine;
                                                             Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                  Administration (SIRVA)
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                              DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On January 3, 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving a pneumococcal conjugate (“Prevnar”)
vaccine on October 15, 2015. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed Nov. 13, 2017, at ¶¶ 1-2, 4.
Petitioner further alleges that she received a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury Table
in the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six
months, and that neither she nor anyone else has filed a lawsuit or accepted a
settlement or award for her injury alleged to be vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶ 9-12;
Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the Prevnar vaccine is the cause of
petitioner’s alleged SIRVA or any other injury, or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶
6.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
       Nevertheless, on November 13, 2017, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The
undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court
in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

     Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned
awards the following compensation:

        A lump sum of $60,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
        Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of
        damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id.

       The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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