Court Opinion

ID: 4226099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-05 22:01:25.714255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:42.610099
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 16-1061V
                                      Filed: April 3, 2017
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
WILLIAM STAAK, JR.,                       *
                                          *
                     Petitioner,          *
                                          *     Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
v.                                        *     Influenza Vaccine (“Flu Vaccine”);
                                          *     Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                       *     Administration (“SIRVA”);
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                       *     Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
                                          *
                     Respondent.          *
                                          *
****************************
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop, Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.
Sarah C. Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On August 25, 2016, William Staak, Jr. (“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” or “Program”). Petitioner alleges that within two
hours of the influenza vaccination on September 29, 2015, he developed severe left
shoulder pain and that his injuries were caused by the influenza vaccination. Petition at
1, ¶¶ 5, 6, 14. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.

        On February 17, 2017, the undersigned issued a ruling on entitlement, finding
petitioner entitled to compensation. (ECF No. 17). On April 3, 2017, respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
$55,000.00. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees
with the proffered award. Id. 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 attached Proffer, the undersigned awards
petitioner a lump sum payment of $55,000.00 in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, William Staak, Jr. 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
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
                           OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

                                                      )
    WILLIAM STAAK, JR.,                               )
                                                      )
                 Petitioner,                          )
                                                      )   No. 16-1061V
    v.                                                )   Chief Special Master Dorsey
                                                      )   ECF
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN                     )
    SERVICES,                                         )
                                                      )
                 Respondent.                          )
                                                      )

                        PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

I.       Items of Compensation

         Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded

$55,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled

under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).1 Petitioner agrees.

II.      Form of the Award

         Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.

Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a

lump sum payment of $55,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.

                                               Respectfully submitted,

                                               CHAD A. READLER
                                               Acting Assistant Attorney General

                                               C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
                                               Acting Director
                                               Torts Branch, Civil Division

1
 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
                                                  1
                       CATHARINE E. REEVES
                       Deputy Director
                       Torts Branch, Civil Division

                       ALTHEA WALKER DAVIS
                       Senior Trial Counsel
                       Torts Branch, Civil Division

                       s/ Sarah C. Duncan
                       Sarah C. Duncan
                       Trial Attorney
                       Torts Branch, Civil Division
                       U.S. Department of Justice
                       P.O. Box 146
                       Benjamin Franklin Station
                       Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
                       Tel: (202) 514-9729
                       Fax: (202) 616-4310
DATED: April 3, 2017

                          2