VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00293
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00293
Petitioner: Ruby J. Williams
Filed: 2014-04-14
Decided: 2015-08-03
Vaccine: trivalent influenza
Vaccination date: 2011-10-28
Condition: neuropathic pain in her left shoulder and arm
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 29000

AI-assisted case summary:
Ruby J. Williams filed a petition on April 14, 2014, alleging that she suffered neuropathic pain in her left shoulder and arm as a result of receiving the trivalent influenza vaccine on October 28, 2011. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, reviewed the facts and concluded that the petitioner's alleged injury was consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and that she was entitled to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The respondent's Rule 4(c) Report stated that the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a vaccine award because her alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA, and that she had satisfied all other legal prerequisites for compensation. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, in a ruling on entitlement issued on July 15, 2014, found that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine, based on the respondent's concession and the court's review. A separate order for damages was to follow. Subsequently, on August 3, 2015, Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a decision on attorney's fees and costs. The parties had filed a joint stipulation regarding these fees and costs. Petitioner's counsel, Elizabeth M. Muldowney of Rawls, McNelis & Mitchell, P.C., was to receive a lump sum of $28,500.00, payable jointly to the petitioner and her counsel. Petitioner was to receive $500.00 in reimbursable costs, payable solely to her. The total award was $29,000.00. The decision noted that the ruling would be posted on the court's website, with provisions for parties to request redaction of confidential information.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Ruby J. Williams alleged neuropathic pain in her left shoulder and arm following a trivalent influenza vaccine administered on October 28, 2011. The respondent conceded entitlement, stating the injury was consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found entitlement based on this concession and the petitioner satisfying other legal prerequisites for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The specific mechanism of injury and expert medical opinions are not detailed in the provided public decisions. The case resulted in a total award of $29,000.00, comprising $28,500.00 for attorney's fees and costs payable jointly to the petitioner and her counsel, Elizabeth M. Muldowney, and $500.00 in reimbursable costs payable solely to the petitioner. The decision on entitlement was issued on July 15, 2014, and the decision on attorney's fees and costs was issued on August 3, 2015, both by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00293-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-08-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/15/2014) regarding 11 Ruling on Entitlement (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00293-UNJ Document 13 Filed 08/05/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-293V
(Filed July 15, 2014)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RUBY J. WILLIAMS, *
* Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Entitlement; Conceded
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Elizabeth M. Muldowney, Rawls, McNelis and Mitchell, P.C., Richmond,VA, for Petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT1
On April 14, 2014, Petitioner Ruby J. Williams filed a petition seeking compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner
alleges that she suffered neuropathic pain in her left shoulder and arm as a result of receiving the
trivalent influenza vaccine on October 28, 2011.
1 Because this ruling 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 posted ruling’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 1:14-vv-00293-UNJ Document 13 Filed 08/05/14 Page 2 of 2
In her Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent indicates the conclusion that the Petitioner’s claim is
compensable under the Act. Respondent specifically stated that the Division of Vaccine Injury
Compensation (DVIC), Department of Health and Human Services, has reviewed the facts of
this case and has concluded that the Petitioner is entitled to a vaccine award because
“Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”)” (Rule 4(c) Report at 6). Additionally, the Rule 4(c) Report acknowledges that
Petitioner has satisfied all the other legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act.
Id.
In view of Respondent’s concession, and based on my own review of the record (See §
300aa-13(a)(1)), I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for an injury that was caused-
in-fact by a covered vaccine. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV) and 100.3(b)(2). A separate damages
order will issue shortly.
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Christina Gervasi, at (202) 357-6521.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00293-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-04-02
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/12/2015) regarding 24 DECISION Proffer. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00293-UNJ Document 28 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-293V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
RUBY J. WILLIAMS, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: March 12, 2015
*
v. * Decision by Proffer; Damages;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Administration (“SIRVA”)
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner
Traci R. Patton, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 14, 2014, Ruby J. Williams filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 On July 14, 2014, Respondent filed a Rule
4(c) report conceding that Petitioner’s alleged injury was consistent with a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration, and that Petitioner had met the statutory six month injury
requirement. On July 15, 2014, I entered a decision finding that Petitioner had established that
she was entitled to compensation for her injury.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will 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)). As provided by 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of
confidential information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) permits each party 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 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 1:14-vv-00293-UNJ Document 28 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 4
On March 10, 2015, Respondent filed a proffer awarding compensation to Petitioner. I
have reviewed the file, and based upon that review I conclude that Respondent’s proffer is
reasonable. I therefore adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages on the terms set
forth therein.
The proffer proposes the following award to Petitioner:
A lump sum of $95,417.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner,
Ruby J. Williams. This amount accounts for all elements of compensation
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) to which Petitioner will be entitled;
Proffer § II.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. 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), entry of judgment may be expedited by the parties= joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.

Case 1:14-vv-00293-UNJ Document 28 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
RUBY J. WILLIAMS, )
)
Petitioner, )
v. ) No. 14-293V
) Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) ECF
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Compensation for Vaccine Injury-Related Items
Respondent proffers that, based on the evidence of record, petitioner should be awarded
$95,417.00. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1); 15(a)(3)(A); and 15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment as described below, and request that the special master’s decision
and the Court’s judgment award the following:1
A. A lump sum payment of $95,417.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Ruby J.
Williams. This amount accounts for all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C.
§300aa-15(a) to which petitioner would be entitled.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
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 lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.

Case 1:14-vv-00293-UNJ Document 28 Filed 04/02/15 Page 4 of 4
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALTHEA W. DAVIS
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Traci R. Patton
TRACI R. PATTON
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 146
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel.: (202) 353-1589
DATE: March 10, 2014
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00293-2
Date issued/filed: 2015-08-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/13/2015) regarding 30 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00293-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-293V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
RUBY J. WILLIAMS, *
* Filed: July 13, 2015
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Elizabeth M. Muldowney, Rawls, McNelis & Mitchell, PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner
Traci Patton, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On April 14, 2014, Ruby Williams filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On March 10, 2015, Respondent made a proffer. I
subsequently issued a decision finding the proffer to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the
award outlined by the proffer.
On July 13, 2015, counsel for both parties filed a joint stipulation in regards to attorney’s
fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of
$28,500.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel. This amount
represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in compliance with General
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it 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 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential
information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 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.

Case 1:14-vv-00293-UNJ Document 33 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 2
Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that she incurred $500.00 in reimbursable costs in
proceeding on this petition.
I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award should be made in the form of two checks in the amounts of:
 $28,500.00 payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Elizabeth M.
Muldowney, Esq; and
 $500.00 payable solely 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.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their
right to seek review.