Anderson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1915V UNPUBLISHED

ANITA ANDERSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: June 24, 2020 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; HUMAN SERVICES, Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)

Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN, for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

On December 14, 2018, Anita Anderson 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 right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) from a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, Prevnar 13, administered on October 17, 2017. Petition at 1; Stipulation, issued at June 24, 2020, ¶¶ 1-4. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her condition. Petition at 1-3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a Table SIRVA within the Table timeframe, and denies that the Prevnar 13 vaccine in fact caused her alleged shoulder injury and residual effects, or any other injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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). Nevertheless, on June 24, 2020, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation:

A lump sum of $45,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id.

I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran 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.