Seechel Patel v. HHS - Influenza, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) (2016)

Filed 2013-10-29Decided 2016-01-12Vaccine Influenza
compensated$829,928

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

On October 29, 2013, Seechel Patel filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccination administered on November 26, 2010, caused her to develop a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused the petitioner's SIRVA or any other injury.

On July 2, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation to settle the case, agreeing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as the decision of the Court.

Petitioner was awarded a lump sum of $829,928.40, representing compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The decision was posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002.

Ronald C. Homer of Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C. represented the Petitioner, and Ryan D.

Pyles of the United States Department of Justice represented the Respondent. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses involved in this case.

Theory of causation

Petitioner Seechel Patel alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on November 26, 2010, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The parties reached a joint stipulation on July 2, 2015, agreeing to a settlement. Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman adopted the stipulation as the decision of the Court. Petitioner received a lump sum award of $829,928.40, representing compensation for all damages under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner's counsel was Ronald C. Homer of Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., and Respondent's counsel was Ryan D. Pyles of the United States Department of Justice. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the respondent's specific defenses beyond a general denial.

Source PDFs 2 total · 1 downloaded