Court Opinion

ID: 4357800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-10 17:04:28.796064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:46:38.431056
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-1380V
                                   Filed: November 20, 2018
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    JENNIFER GINTER,

                        Petitioner,
    v.                                                       Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                                                             Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                  Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                          Injury Related to Vaccine
                                                             Administration (SIRVA)
                       Respondent.

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On September 29, 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 left shoulder injuries caused in fact
by the adverse effects of the influenza vaccination she received on October 4, 2016.
Petition at ¶¶ 2, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.

        On November 20, 2018, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On November 20, 2018, respondent filed a
combined Rule 4 report and proffer on award of compensation (“Rule 4 Report and

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 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the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).
Proffer”)3 indicating petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00, representing
compensation for petitioner’s actual and projected pain and suffering. Rule 4 Report
and Proffer at 3. In the Proffer, 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. Id.

       Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the undersigned awards
petitioner a lump sum payment of $55,000.00, representing compensation for
petitioner’s actual and projected pain and suffering in the form of a check payable
to petitioner, Jennifer Ginter. 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.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                          s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Chief Special Master

3The combined Rule 4 report and proffer contains information regarding petitioner’s personal medical
history which is not generally included in a proffer, when separately filed. Thus, the undersigned will not
attach the proffer to the decision in this case.

4 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