United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Baker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 17, 2019 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-1811V Filed: February 21, 2019 UNPUBLISHED

CHERYL M. BAKER,

Petitioner, v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint

Stipulation on Damages; Influenza SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury HUMAN SERVICES, Related to Vaccine Administration

(SIRVA) Respondent.

Stephen I. Leshner, Stephen I. Leshner, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner. Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On November 17, 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 injuries, specifically adhesive capsulitis of her left shoulder, caused in fact by the influenza vaccination she received on September 28, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶ 2; Stipulation, filed Feb. 21, 2019, at ¶¶ 1-2, 4. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged SIRVA or any other injury and further denies that her alleged current disabilities are a sequela of a vaccine- related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, on February 21, 2019, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned awards the following compensation:

A lump sum of $32,000.00 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. The undersigned approves 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/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.

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). 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).

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