Filed: Apr. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2016
Summary: Unpublished RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On October 6, 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 the influenza vaccination that she received on November 25, 2014 caused her to suffer a shoulder injury. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing U
Summary: Unpublished RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On October 6, 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 the influenza vaccination that she received on November 25, 2014 caused her to suffer a shoulder injury. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Un..
More
Unpublished
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On October 6, 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 the influenza vaccination that she received on November 25, 2014 caused her to suffer a shoulder injury. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 28, 2016, respondent filed a 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 (ECF No. 20). 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 or about November 25, 2014." Id. at 4. Respondent further indicates that no other cause of petitioner's injury has been identified, that she suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months, and that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.
Additionally, "[b]ased upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $130,439.12, 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 4. 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 $130,439.12 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Jamie Saracino.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.
