Schmitter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-459V
Filed: April 10, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
ANITA SCHMITTER,
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
Petitioner, Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
v. (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND (SIRVA)
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On March 30, 2017, 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 suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on
November 4, 2015. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed April 9, 2018, at ¶ 1. Petitioner
further alleges that the flu shot was administered in the United States, that she suffered
the residual effects of her injuries for more than six months, and that there has been no
prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her
condition. Petition at 1-7; Stipulation at ¶¶ 2-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine
caused petitioner’s alleged left shoulder injuries, to include impingement with adhesive
capsulitis and a partial rotator cuff tear, or any other injury, and further denies that
petitioner’s current disabilities are sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. ” Stipulation at ¶
6.
1
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
Nevertheless, on April 9, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned
finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding
damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned
awards the following compensation:
A lump sum of $140,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that
would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id.
The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
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