Court Opinion

ID: 4163707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-27 12:06:18.283151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:58.406621
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-290V
                                   Filed: December 21, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
MARY AGRESTI,                            *
                                         *
                     Petitioner,         *     Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v.                                       *     Influenza;
                                         *     Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                      *     Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                      *
                                         *
                     Respondent.         *
                                         *
****************************
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                              DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On March 1, 2016, 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”) caused by her November 6, 2014 influenza vaccination.
Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed December 21, 2016, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that
she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months and that there
has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her
condition. Petition at 3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that the influenza
vaccine is the cause of petitioner’s alleged SIRVA, and/or any other injury or her current
condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

       Nevertheless, on December 21, 2016, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court
in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

        The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:

        A lump sum of $50,000.00 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 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-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