Court Opinion

ID: 4326128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-10-31 16:02:43.699468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:46:51.040901
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-1022V
                                   Filed: September 14, 2018
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    ALBERT PARSONS,

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

                       Respondent.

Ann Mayhew Golski, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On July 28, 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) causally related to an adverse reaction to the seasonal
influenza vaccination he received on August 11, 2016. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 8-9. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

        On September 14, 2018, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
entitled to compensation for his SIRVA. On September 13, 2018, respondent filed a
combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on award of compensation (“Rule 4/Proffer”)

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).
indicating petitioner should be awarded $3,596.31 for unreimbursable medical expenses
and $107,500.00 for actual and projected pain and suffering. Rule 4/Proffer at 1. In the
Rule 4/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 Rule 4/Proffer.

       Pursuant to the terms stated in the Rule 4/Proffer, the undersigned awards
petitioner a lump sum payment of $111,096.31, representing $107,500.00 for
actual and projected pain and suffering and $3,596.31 for unreimbursable
expenses in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Albert Parsons. 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