United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Davila-Mayorga v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided September 15, 2021 · Daniel T. Horner

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1581V Filed: August 2, 2021

UNPUBLISHED HECTOR DAVILA-MAYORGA a/k/a Special Master Horner ERNESTO CERVANTES,

Petitioner, Damages Decision Based on Proffer; v. Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder

Injury Related to Vaccine SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Administration (SIRVA) HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for petitioner. Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 On October 10, 2019, Hector Davila-Mayorga, also known as Ernesto, 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”). (ECF No. 1.)

On April 1, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for his SIRVA. On July 29, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $90,000.00 for pain and suffering related to his SIRVA. (ECF No. 37.) 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 attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering related to his SIRVA 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/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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. 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint f iling of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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