Judges: Brian H. Corcoran
Filed: Dec. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1480V UNPUBLISHED TAJUANA PERKINS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 7, 2019 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision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) Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washin
Summary: In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1480V UNPUBLISHED TAJUANA PERKINS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 7, 2019 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision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) Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washing..
More
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1480V
UNPUBLISHED
TAJUANA PERKINS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 7, 2019
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)
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 26, 2018, Tajuana Perkins 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 left shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered
on October 11, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On September 27, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On November 7, 2019, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$80,000.00. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
1
I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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. 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).
2
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
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 $80,000.00 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/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.
2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
TAJUANA PERKINS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 18-1480
) Chief Special Master Brian Corcoran
SECRETARY OF )
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On September 27, 2019, respondent filed a Vaccine Rule 4(c) report concluding that
petitioner suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration within the Table
timeframe following an influenza vaccination, and conceding petitioner’s entitlement to
compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§300aa-10 to -34. Accordingly, on September 27, 2019, the Chief Special Master issued a
Ruling on Entitlement.
I. Items of Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $80,000.00. This amount
represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment of $80,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 1 This
lump sum payment represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
GABRIELLE FIELDING
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ LARA A. ENGLUND
LARA A. ENGLUND
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 307-3013
E-mail: lara.a.englund@usdoj.gov
Dated: November 7, 2019
1
Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical
expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
2