Court Opinion

ID: 4446763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-10-15 16:01:58.107732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:11.732129
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 18-1049V
                                      Filed: July 23, 2019
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    NACOLE TROUPE-ROBERTS,

                        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.

Shealene Priscilla Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On July 18, 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 (“flu”) vaccination administered on
August 29, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.

       On July 23, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On July 22, 2019, respondent filed a combined Rule 4
report/proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be

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).
awarded $112,804.00 (consisting of $110,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,804.00
in past, unreimbursable expenses). Rule 4 report/Proffer at 4. 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 Proffer.

       Pursuant to the terms stated in the Rule 4/Proffer, the undersigned awards
petitioner a lump sum payment of $112,804.00 (consisting of $110,000.00 for pain
and suffering and $2,804.00 in past, unreimbursable expenses) in the form of a
check payable to petitioner, Nacole Troupe-Roberts. 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