VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01090
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01090
Petitioner: Virgil Kim
Filed: 2014-11-07
Decided: 2015-09-30
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2013-10-12
Condition: left brachial plexitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 100532

AI-assisted case summary:
Virgil Kim filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on November 7, 2014. He alleged that on October 12, 2013, he received DTaP and influenza vaccinations and subsequently developed pain in his left shoulder, along with numbness and tingling in his hands. His diagnosis was left brachial plexitis triggered by the DTaP vaccination. The respondent conceded that Mr. Kim had satisfied his burden of proof for an on-Table brachial neuritis injury resulting from the DTaP vaccine, and that the injury lasted more than six months. Based on this concession and the evidence, entitlement to compensation was granted. Subsequently, the parties reached a proffer on damages. Mr. Kim was awarded a lump sum of $91,255.90 for pain and suffering, past unreimbursable expenses, and projected unreimbursable expenses. Later, a stipulation for attorney fees and costs was filed, and the court awarded $9,286.28 in attorneys' fees and costs, jointly payable to Mr. Kim and his counsel. The total compensation awarded to Mr. Kim was $100,532.18.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01090-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-03-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/10/2015) regarding 16 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01090-UNJ Document 18 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1090V
Filed: February 10, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VIRGIL KIM, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
* Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular Pertussis;
* TDaP; Table Injury; Brachial Neuritis;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Brachial Plexitis; Special Processing
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Unit
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Amber Wilson, Esq., Maglio, Christopher, and Toale, PA (DC), Washington, DC for
petitioner.
Claudia Gangi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On November 7, 2014, Virgil Kim 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 he “developed pain in the left
shoulder and he was suffering from numbness and tingling in his hands” after receiving
the DTaP and influenza vaccinations on October 12, 2013. Petition at 1. Petitioner was
“diagnosed . . . with left brachial plexitis triggered by vaccination (DTaP).” Petition at 2.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 9, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she
concedes “that compensation is appropriate in this case.” Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report [“Res. Report”] at 3. Specifically, respondent believes “that petitioner has
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).

Case 1:14-vv-01090-UNJ Document 18 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 2
satisfied his burden of proof in establishing that he suffered an on-Table brachial
neuritis as a result of his receipt of the Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular Pertussis vaccine in
his left arm on October 12, 2013.” Errata to Res. Report, filed Feb. 10, 2015, at 1.
Agreeing that petitioner’s injury lasted for more than six months, respondent indicates
petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Res.
Report at 3.
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-01090-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-05-08
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/16/2015) regarding 22 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01090-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1090V
Filed: April 16, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VIRGIL KIM, *
*
Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
* Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular Pertussis;
* TDaP; Table Injury; Brachial Neuritis;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Brachial Plexitis; Special Processing
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Unit
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Amber Wilson, Esq., Maglio, Christopher, and Toale, PA (DC), Washington, DC for
petitioner.
Claudia Gangi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On November 7, 2014, Virgil Kim 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 he “developed pain in the left
shoulder and he was suffering from numbness and tingling in his hands” after receiving
the DTaP and influenza vaccinations on October 12, 2013. Petition at 1. Petitioner was
“diagnosed . . . with left brachial plexitis triggered by vaccination (DTaP).” Petition at 2.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 10, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner had
established that he suffered a Table injury (brachial neuritis) and was entitled to
compensation. On April 14, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation
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).

Case 1:14-vv-01090-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 5
[“Proffer”] indicating petitioner should be awarded “a lump sum payment of $91,255.90
(representing compensation for actual and projected pain and suffering, past
unreimbursable expenses related to the vaccine-related injury, and projected
unreimbursable expenses related to the vaccine-related injury).” Proffer at 1-2.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump
sum payment of $91,255.90 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Virgil
Kim. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
3 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--0011009900--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2215 FFiilleedd 0045//1048//1155 PPaaggee 13 ooff 35
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
_______________________________________
)
VIRGIL KIM, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 14-1090V
) Chief Special Master Vowell
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) ECF
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON DAMAGES
Respondent submits the following recommendations regarding items of compensation to
be awarded to petitioner under the Vaccine Act.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Future Medical Care Expenses
Respondent proffers that based on the evidence of record, petitioner is entitled to an
award of $1,000.00 for projected unreimbursable medical care expenses as provided under 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(A). Petitioner agrees.
B. Lost Earnings
Respondent proffers that based upon the evidence of record, petitioner has not and is not
likely to suffer a loss of earnings as a result of his vaccine-related injury. Accordingly, the Court
should not award lost future earnings as provided under § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). Petitioner agrees.
1

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011009900--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2215 FFiilleedd 0045//1048//1155 PPaaggee 24 ooff 35
C. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $90,000.00 in actual and projected
pain and suffering. This amount reflects that the award for projected pain and suffering has been
reduced to net present value. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
D. Past Unreimbursed Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents his expenditure of past un-reimbursable
expenses related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that the petitioner is entitled
to past un-reimbursed expenses in the amount of $255.90. Petitioner agrees.
E. Medicaid Lien
Petitioner represents that there are no outstanding Medicaid liens related to his vaccine-
related injury.
F. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
This proffer does not address final attorneys’ fees and costs. Petitioner is entitled to
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, to be determined at a later date upon petitioner filing
substantiating documentation.
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 Chief Special Master’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following : a lump sum payment of $91,255.90
(representing compensation for actual and projected pain and suffering, past unreimbursable
2

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0011009900--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2215 FFiilleedd 0045//1048//1155 PPaaggee 35 ooff 35
expenses related to the vaccine-related injury, and projected unreimbursable expenses related to
the vaccine-related injury), in the form of a check payable to petitioner.1
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
A lump sum payment of $91,255.90, representing compensation for actual and projected
pain and suffering, and past and projected unreimbursable expenses related to the vaccine-related
injury, payable to petitioner.
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
LYNN E. RICCIARDELLA
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Claudia B. Gangi
CLAUDIA B. GANGI
Senior 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) 616-4138
Dated: April 14, 2015
1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, respondent would oppose any award for
future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering, and the parties
reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief.
3

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01090-2
Date issued/filed: 2015-09-30
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/26/2015) regarding 27 Stipulation for Fees ( Signed by Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01090-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1090V
Filed: August 26, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VIRGIL KIM, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorney Fees and Costs; Stipulation
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Amber Wilson, Esq., Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, (DC) Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Clandia Gangi, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On November 7, 2014, Virgil Kim 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 he “developed pain in the left
shoulder and he was suffering from numbness and tingling in his hands” after receiving
the DTaP and influenza vaccinations on October 12, 2013. Petition at 1. Petitioner was
“diagnosed . . . with left brachial plexitis triggered by vaccination (DTaP).” Petition at 2.
On April 16, 2015, I issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on
respondent’s proffer to which petitioner agreed.
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).

Case 1:14-vv-01090-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2
On August 26, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys’
Fees and Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties agree upon an award of
$9,286.28 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order #9,
petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner incurred no 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 $9,286.283 as a lump sum in the form of a
check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Amber Wilson.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief 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