VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01075
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01075
Petitioner: Karen Comeiro
Filed: 2014-11-04
Decided: 2015-10-20
Vaccine: trivalent flu
Vaccination date: 2013-10-08
Condition: severe blistering and disfigurement at the injection site
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 85000

AI-assisted case summary:
Karen Comeiro filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered severe blistering and disfigurement at the injection site caused by a trivalent flu vaccine she received on October 8, 2013. Initially, she also alleged aggravation of her rheumatoid arthritis due to the injury, but later agreed to narrow her claim to only the injection site injury. The respondent conceded that Ms. Comeiro was entitled to compensation for this local skin reaction, which lasted for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence, the court found Ms. Comeiro entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties reached a stipulation for damages, and the court awarded Ms. Comeiro a lump sum of $85,000.00. Later, the parties also stipulated to attorney fees and costs, resulting in an additional award of $13,806.28 for attorney fees and $20.00 for petitioner's costs, for a total of $13,826.28.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01075-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-03-23
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/02/2015) regarding 15 Ruling on Entitlement (Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01075-UNJ Document 17 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1075V
Filed: March 2, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KAREN COMEIRO, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
v. * Trivalent Flu Vaccine; Injection Site
* Injury; Special Processing Unit
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Erika Todd, Esq., Arrowood Peters LLP, Boston, MA for petitioner.
Justine Walters, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On November 4, 2014, Karen Comeiro 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”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered injuries to include
“severe blistering and disfigurement at the injection site” which were caused by the
trivalent flu vaccine she received on October 8, 2013.3 The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to
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 (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
redact 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 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 (2006).
3 Petition at 1. Initially, petitioner also alleged that she suffered an adverse effect on her rheumatoid
arthritis (an ongoing condition) because she was forced to abstain from taking at least one of her
rheumatoid arthritis medications which was interfering with the healing of the injection site injury. Petition
at 4-5. Respondent disputes vaccine causation for this additional injury. See Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report [“Res. Report”] at 2, 9-10. On March 2, 2015, petitioner’s counsel informed the OSM staff attorney
managing this case by email that petitioner had agreed to narrow her claim to exclude any claim of
aggravation of her rheumatoid arthritis.

Case 1:14-vv-01075-UNJ Document 17 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 2
On February 27, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she
concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Res. Report at 2.
Specifically, respondent “concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation for the
local skin reaction that she sustained in her left arm [but] . . . denies that compensation
is appropriate for petitioner’s claim that she suffered from an aggravation of her
rheumatoid arthritis as a sequela of her injury.” Id.; accord. id at 9-10. Petitioner has
agreed to limit her claim to the injury to which respondent concedes. See supra note 3.
Respondent agrees that petitioner’s injury lasted for more than six months. Res. Report
at 9-10.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01075-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-07-27
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/30/2015) regarding 21 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01075-UNJ Document 25 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1075V
Filed: June 30, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KAREN COMEIRO, *
*
Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
* Trivalent Influenza or Flu Vaccine;
* Injection Site Injury
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Erika Todd, Esq., Arrowood Peters LLP, Boston, MA for petitioner.
Justine Walters, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On November 4, 2014, Karen Comeiro 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”]. Petitioner alleged that she suffered injuries to include
“severe blistering and disfigurement at the injection site” which were caused by the
trivalent flu vaccine she received on October 8, 2013.3 The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
to 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 (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
redact 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 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 (2006).
3 Petition at 1. Initially, petitioner also alleged that she suffered an adverse effect on her rheumatoid
arthritis (an ongoing condition) because she was forced to abstain from taking at least one of her
rheumatoid arthritis medications which was interfering with the healing of the injection site injury. Petition
at 4-5. Respondent disputed vaccine causation for this additional injury. See Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report [“Res. Report”] at 2, 9-10. On March 2, 2015, petitioner’s counsel informed the OSM staff attorney
managing this case by email that petitioner had agreed to narrow her claim to exclude any claim of
aggravation of her rheumatoid arthritis.

Case 1:14-vv-01075-UNJ Document 25 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 4
On March 2, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation. On June 30, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation
[“Proffer”] indicating petitioner should be awarded $85,000.00. Proffer at 1. According
to respondent’s Proffer, petitioner agrees to this proposed amount. Id.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump
sum payment of $85,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Karen
Comeiro. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be
available under § 300aa-15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.4
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011007755--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2205 FFiilleedd 0067//3207//1155 PPaaggee 13 ooff 24
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
KAREN COMEIRO, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 14-1075V
v. ) Chief Special Master Vowell
) SPU
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ) ECF
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$85,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).1 Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment of $85,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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.

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011007755--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2205 FFiilleedd 0067//3207//1155 PPaaggee 24 ooff 24
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALTHEA W. DAVIS
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Justine Walters
JUSTINE WALTERS
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel.: (202) 307-6393
DATE: June 30, 2015
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01075-2
Date issued/filed: 2015-10-20
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/14/2015) regarding 28 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01075-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1075V
Filed: September 14, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KAREN COMEIRO, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorney Fees and Costs; Stipulation
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Erika Todd, Esq., Arrowood Peters LLP, Boston, MA for petitioner.
Justine Walters, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1
Vowell, Special Master:
On November 4, 2014, Karen Comeiro 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”]. Petitioner alleged that she suffered injuries to include
“severe blistering and disfigurement at the injection site” which were caused by the
trivalent flu vaccine she received on October 8, 2013.3 On June 30, 2015, I issued a
decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on the respondent’s proffer.
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), petitioners have 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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 (2006).
3 Petition at 1. Initially, petitioner also alleged that she suffered an adverse effect on her rheumatoid
arthritis (an ongoing condition) because she was forced to abstain from taking at least one of her
rheumatoid arthritis medications which was interfering with the healing of the injection site injury. Petition

Case 1:14-vv-01075-UNJ Document 32 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 2
On September 14, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts Regarding Final
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties agree upon an
award of $13,806.28 for attorney’s fees and costs and an award of $20.00 for
petitioner’s costs. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel represents
that petitioner incurred $20.00 in out-of-pocket expenses.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42
U.S.C. § 300 aa-15(e). I find the proposed amount to be reasonable.
Accordingly, I award the total $13,826.284 as follows:
1. an award of $13,806.28 in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner
and petitioner’s counsel Erika Todd, and
2. an award of $20.00 in the form of a check solely payable to petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Special Master
at 4-5. Respondent disputed vaccine causation for this additional injury. See Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report [“Res. Report”] at 2, 9-10. On March 2, 2015, petitioner’s counsel informed the OSM staff attorney
managing this case by email that petitioner had agreed to narrow her claim to exclude any claim of
aggravation of her rheumatoid arthritis.
4 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).
2