VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00950
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00950
Petitioner: Merle Kaplan
Filed: 2014-03-05
Decided: 2014-04-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2012-10-24
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 10303

AI-assisted case summary:
Merle Kaplan filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of a trivalent influenza vaccine she received on October 24, 2012. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded that Kaplan was entitled to compensation. The respondent's report stated that the injury was consistent with SIRVA and was caused in fact by the flu vaccine. The respondent also agreed that the statutory six-month sequel requirement had been satisfied based on Kaplan's medical records. The Special Master found entitlement to compensation based on an injury caused by a covered vaccine, and a separate damages order was to issue. Subsequently, the parties filed a stipulation for attorney fees and costs. The respondent did not object to the amended amount of $10,303.71 requested by Kaplan. The Special Master found that the petition was brought in good faith and had a reasonable basis, making the award for fees and costs appropriate. The total amount of $10,303.71 was awarded for attorney fees and costs, payable jointly to Kaplan and her counsel.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00950-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-03-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/05/2014) regarding 10 Ruling on Entitlement (Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00950-UNJ Document 12 Filed 03/27/14 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-950V
Filed: March 5, 2014
***********************************************
MERLE KAPLAN, *
*
Petitioner, * Conceded; SIRVA; Flu
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT *
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
***********************************************
1
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT
Gowen, Special Master:
On December 3, 2013, Merle Kaplan [“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”]. The petition alleges that petitioner
suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration [“SIRVA”] as a result of
a trivalent influenza [“flu”] vaccine she received on October 24, 2012. Petition at 4,
para. 18.
On March 3, 2014, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report [“Respondent’s Report”],
in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Report at 6. Specifically, respondent submits that, “DVIC has concluded
that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she received
on October 24, 2012. Id.; See 42 U.S.C. §300aa-13(a)(1).
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to
post this ruling 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and
move to delete 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
delete 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 (2006).

Case 1:13-vv-00950-UNJ Document 12 Filed 03/27/14 Page 2 of 2
Respondent also agreed, based on petitioner’s medical records, that the statutory six
month sequel requirement has been satisfied. Respondent’s Report at 6. See also Pet.
Ex. 6 at 79; Pet Ex. 5 at 2-4.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find
entitlement to compensation based on an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered
vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV). A separate damages order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00950-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-04-30
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/4/2014) regarding 19 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00950-UNJ Document 23 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-950V
Filed: April 4, 2014
(Not to be published)
***********************************************
MERLE KAPLAN, *
*
Petitioner, * Stipulation; Attorney Fees and Costs
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT *
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
***********************************************
Edward M. Kraus, Esq., Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL for petitioner.
Tara J. Kilfoyle, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1
Gowen, Special Master:
In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 I issued
a Ruling on Entitlement on March 5, 2014, and a Decision awarding damages pursuant
to respondent’s proffer on March 27, 2014. On April 4, 2014, the parties filed a
stipulation for attorney fees and costs. The stipulation indicates that respondent does
not object to the amended amount of $10,303.71 that petitioner is requesting.
Additionally, pursuant to General Order #9, the stipulation notes that petitioner incurred
no personal litigation costs.
I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a
reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
to post this decision 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and
move to delete 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
delete such material from public access.
2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.
(2006).

Case 1:13-vv-00950-UNJ Document 23 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 2
reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the total $10,303.713 in
the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel of
record, Edward Kraus, for petitioner’s attorney fees and costs.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.
Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including
costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y, HHS, 924
F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
2