United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Woods v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided November 3, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-2071V UNPUBLISHED

JEANNINE WOODS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: September 6, 2022 v.

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

Related to Vaccine Administration Respondent. (SIRVA).

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Nancy Tinch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On December 30, 2020, Jeannine Woods (“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 received an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on December 11, 2019, and thereafter suffered from a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On August 25, 2022, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer in which he conceded that Petitioner was entitled to compensation for a left-sided SIRVA Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 1, 5. On September 6, 2022, I issued a Ruling on Entitlement.

Respondent represents that Petitioner agrees to his proffer on an award of compensation. Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 5-6. 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 combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer,3 I award a lump sum of $52,500.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 6. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4 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1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). 3 Because the combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer contains information regarding A.M.’s personal medical history, which is not generally included in a Proffer when separately filed, it is not attached hereto. 4 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.