United States Court of Federal Claims, 2020

Zimmer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided September 14, 2020 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1442V UNPUBLISHED

JAY ZIMMER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 13, 2020 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Influenza HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration Respondent. (SIRVA)

Kristina E. Grigorian, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.

Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On September 20, 2018, Jay Zimmer 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) after receiving an influenza (flu) vaccination on September 14, 2017. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at August 12, 2020, ¶¶ 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, he experienced the residual effects of this condition for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on his behalf as a result of his condition. Petition at 1, 8; Stipulation at ¶¶ at 3-5. “Respondent denies that [P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that a vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s alleged shoulder injurie, or any other injury; and denies that his current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 August 12, 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 $94,600.00 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 Section 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.