United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Darken v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 24, 2015 · Denise Kathryn Vowell

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-901V

Filed: April 1, 2015

Unpublished

**************************** DIANA DARKEN, *

* Petitioner, * Stipulation on Damages;

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder * Injury Related to Vaccine Administration

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

Respondent. *

**************************** Andrew Downing, Esq., Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner. Debra Begley, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON STIPULATION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On September 24, 2014, Diana Darken filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) that was caused-in-fact by her influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on October 23, 2013. Stipulation, filed Mar. 31, 2015, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, has filed no other action for this injury, and has received no prior award or settlement. Stipulation¶¶ 4-5. Respondent denies that petitioner’s flu vaccine caused petitioner’s SIRVA, or any other injury. Stipulation, ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. Stipulation, ¶ 7. On March 30, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to pay petitioner a lump sum of $95,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation, ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id.

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. 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 s/Denise K. Vowell Denise K. Vowell Chief Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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 (2006). 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.