VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00894
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00894
Petitioner: Jaime Renee Brunkan
Filed: 2014-07-22
Decided: 2014-10-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
Jaime Renee Brunkan filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine. Respondent denied that the SIRVA was caused by the vaccine. However, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation. The court reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as its decision. The stipulation awarded Jaime Renee Brunkan a lump sum of $50,000.00 as compensation for all damages. Subsequently, the parties filed another stipulation regarding attorneys' fees and costs, agreeing that Petitioner's counsel should receive $19,568.53 and Petitioner should receive $400.00 for out-of-pocket expenses. The court approved these amounts as reasonable and issued an amended decision to correct a clerical error, directing that judgment be entered in accordance with the terms of the parties' stipulations.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00894-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-08-18
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/22/2014) regarding 21 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00894-UNJ Document 25 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-894V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JAIME RENEE BRUNKAN, *
* Filed: July 22, 2014
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
* Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Carol L. Gallagher, Carol L. Gallagher, Esq, Linwood, NJ, for Petitioner.
Melonie J. McCall, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 12, 2013, Petitioner Jaime Renee Brunkan filed a petition seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine
Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccination.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the United
States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, §
205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential
information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of
any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is
privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to
the public. (Id.)
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34
(West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A.
' 300aa.

Case 1:13-vv-00894-UNJ Document 25 Filed 08/18/14 Page 2 of 2
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s SIRVA or any related medical problems were caused
by the receipt of the flu vaccine. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated
positions, agreed in a stipulation filed July 21, 2014 that the issues before them can be settled,
and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’
stipulation is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms
set forth therein.
The stipulation awards:
a) A lump sum of $50,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a).
Stipulation ¶ 8.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made
to Petitioners. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the
clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly (or separately) filing
notice(s) renouncing their right to seek review.

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00894-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-10-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/16/2014) regarding 29 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00894-UNJ Document 33 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-894V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JAIME RENEE BRUNKAN, *
* Filed: September 16, 2014
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
v. * Fees & Costs; RCFC 60(a)
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Carol L. Gallagher, NJ, for Petitioner.
Linda S. Renzi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
AMENDED ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On November 12, 2013, Jaime Renee Brunkan filed a petition seeking compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program@). On July 21,
2014, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I
subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting
Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation.
On September 12, 2014, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time
regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive
1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted
on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as
amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B),
however, the parties may object to the inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To
do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that each party has 14 days within which to request redaction
“of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial
in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files,
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine
Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the ruling will be available to the public. Id.

Case 1:13-vv-00894-UNJ Document 33 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 2
a lump sum of $19,568.53, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel.
Additionally, the parties stipulated that Petitioner should receive a lump sum of $400.00, in the
form of a check payable to Petitioner. The amounts represented sums to which Respondent did
not object. I approved the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as the requested
amount for Petitioner’s out-of-pocket expenses, as reasonable.
On September 14, 2014, I issued a decision regarding attorneys’ fees and costs in this
case. However, due to a clerical error the decision was not consistent with the agreement of the
parties or my intent. Petitioner brought this clerical error to my attention, and I am now invoking
Rule 60(a) to make a correction to the decision to reflect my original intentions.
Rule 60(a) of the Court of Federal Claims allows a court to “correct a clerical mistake or
a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or
other part of the record,” and is appropriate where the order, decision or judgment does not
reflect what the court intended. RCFC 60(a); Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 589 F.3d
1187, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)2 courts may “correct
clerical errors in previously issued orders in order to conform the record to the intentions of the
court and the parties”); see also Companion Health Services, Inc. v. Kurtz, 675 F.3d 75, 87 (1st
Cir. 2012) (finding relief under Rule 60(a) appropriate only where “the judgment failed to reflect
the court's intention” and not where the correction would alter the deliberate choice of the judge)
(quoting Bowen Inv., Inc. v. Carneiro Donuts, Inc., 490 F.3d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 2007)). I approve
the originally requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as the requested amount for
Petitioner’s out-of-pocket expenses, as reasonable, and the proposed correction does not alter
that initial conclusion.
Accordingly, an award of $19,568.53 should be made in the form of a check payable
jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Carol L. Gallagher, Esq.; and an award of $400.00
should be made in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for
review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2 The Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims generally mirror the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (FRCP). See RCFC 2002 rules committee note (“interpretation of the court’s
rules will be guided by case law and the Advisory Committee Notes that accompany the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure”); see also Rivera Agredano v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 315, 317 n.3
(Fed. Cl. 2007) (RCFC 60(b) conforms to FRCP 60).
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing
(either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2