Court Opinion

ID: 4385935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-10 20:01:39.92936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:25.322704
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 18-0201V
                                     Filed: February 5, 2019
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    MISTY STEPHENS,

                        Petitioner,
    v.                                                       Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                                                             Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                  Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Bursitis
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On February 8, 2018, 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 vaccine administered on
December 20, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

        On February 5, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
entitled to compensation for bursitis. On February 4, 2019, respondent filed a Rule 4(c)
report including a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating that petitioner
should be awarded $127,127.86. Proffer at 5. In the Proffer, respondent represented

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
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, the
undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such
material from public access. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the
action in this case, undersigned is 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).
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).
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. Id.

       Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner
a lump sum payment of $127,127.86 in the form of a check payable to petitioner,
Misty Stephens. 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/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