Court Opinion

ID: 4168627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-16 16:05:24.637914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:42.508282
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-1212V
                                   Filed: December 27, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
DIANE GIBSON,                          *
                                       *
                   Petitioner,         *      Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
v.                                     *      Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
                                       *      Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                    *      (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                    *      (“SPU”)
                                       *
                   Respondent.         *
                                       *
****************************
Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren, et al., P.C., Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On September 27, 2016, Diane Gibson (“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 an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine she received on January 14, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

        On December 27, 2016, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On December 22, 2016, respondent filed a Rule 4
report which included a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner
should be awarded $80,000.00. Rule 4 Report/Proffer at 3-4. In the Proffer,
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  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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.
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).
respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. 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 $80,000.00, in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, Diane Gibson. 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