United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided August 5, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1541V

UNPUBLISHED

MARY K. JOHNSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 5, 2022 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)

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Mary Eileen Holmes, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On November 6, 2020, Mary K. Johnson 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination she received on November 14, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 30, 2022, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) report and proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”). On July 5, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. In the Proffer, Respondent indicated that Petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00. Proffer at 5. Also 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 $80,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).

The Clerk of 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.

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 section 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.