Filed: Jan. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2016
Summary: RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On September 29, 2015, 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" or "Program"]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury caused in fact by her October 24, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Sp
Summary: RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On September 29, 2015, 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" or "Program"]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury caused in fact by her October 24, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Spe..
More
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On September 29, 2015, 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" or "Program"]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury caused in fact by her October 24, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 20, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report and Proffer on Damages in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent's Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 1. Specifically, respondent "has concluded that petitioner's alleged injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA"), and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she received on October 24, 2014." Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that no other cause for petitioner's injury has been identified and that she has met the statutory requirements by suffering the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id.
Additionally, "[b]ased upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $120,375.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)." Respondent's Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 5. Respondent represents that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id.
In view of respondent's concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. Further, based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in Respondent's Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages.
Pursuant to the terms stated in Respondent's Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 5, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum payment of $120,375.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Michelle Schmidt.3 This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
