United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Brooks v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided May 21, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1456V UNPUBLISHED

KRISTINIA BROOKS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: April 19, 2021 v.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer; HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder

Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)

David Alexander Tierney, Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.

Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On September 23, 2019, Kristinia Brooks 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 10, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 19, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On April 19, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $120,392.16. Proffer at 4-5. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $120,392.16 (comprised of $120,000.00 for pain and suffering and $392.16 for actual lost wages) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. 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/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). 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 September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.