VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00026
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00026
Petitioner: Elaine Stout
Filed: 2015-01-09
Decided: 2015-05-14
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-01-10
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 79444

AI-assisted case summary:
Elaine Stout filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 9, 2015, alleging that an Influenza vaccine received on January 10, 2013, caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) Report conceding that petitioner's injury was consistent with SIRVA and was caused in fact by the flu vaccine. Based on this concession, the Chief Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement, finding Ms. Stout entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on April 22, 2015, the respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, which petitioner agreed to. The decision awarded Ms. Stout a lump sum payment of $79,444.74, consisting of $1,944.74 in past unreimbursable expenses and $77,500.00 in pain and suffering. This award represented all elements of compensation available under the Vaccine Act. Later, on June 15, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs, agreeing to an award of $14,657.78, which was jointly payable to Ms. Stout and her attorney. The case was processed as a Table claim, and entitlement was conceded by the respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00026-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-05-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/15/2015) regarding 16 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00026-UNJ Document 23 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-026V
Filed: April 15, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ELAINE STOUT, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
* Influenza (“flu”) vaccine; Shoulder Injury
v. * Related to Vaccine Administration
* (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
* (“SPU”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Gordon Shemin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
1
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On January 9, 2015, Elaine Stout 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 as a result of an Influenza (“flu”)
vaccination on January 10, 2013, petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 15, 2015, 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 3. Specifically, respondent “concluded that petitioner’s alleged
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the 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)). 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 1:15-vv-00026-UNJ Document 23 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 2
injury is consistent with a SIRVA and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she
received on January 10, 2013.” Id. Respondent stated that “based on the record as it
now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the
[Vaccine] Act.” Id. at 4.
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_15-vv-00026-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-05-14
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/23/2015) regarding 19 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00026-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-026V
Filed: April 23, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ELAINE STOUT, *
*
*
Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
* Influenza (“flu”) vaccine; Shoulder Injury
v. * Related to Vaccine Administration
* (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
* (“SPU”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Gordon Shemin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES
1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On January 9, 2015, Elaine Stout 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 as a result of an Influenza (“flu”)
vaccination on January 10, 2013, petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 15, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation. On April 22, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation
(“Proffer”) detailing compensation for all elements of compensation to which petitioner
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, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). In accordance with
Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have 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 1:15-vv-00026-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 4
would be entitled under §15(a). According to respondent’s Proffer, petitioner agrees to
the proposed award of compensation.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump
sum payment of $79,444.74 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under §15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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

Case 1:15-vv-00026-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
____________________________________
)
ELAINE STOUT, )
)
Petitioner, ) No. 15-26V
) Chief Special Master Vowell
v. ) ECF
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Items of Compensation
For purposes of this proffer, the term “vaccine-related” is as described in Respondent’s
Rule 4(c) Report, filed on April 15, 2015, conceding entitlement in this case. Based upon the
evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $79,444.74, consisting
of $1,944.74 in past unreimbursable expenses and $77,500.00 in pain and suffering. This
represents all elements of competition to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-15(a) for her vaccine-related injury.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 described below, and request that the Special Master’s decision
and the Court’s judgment award the following:
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 1:15-vv-00026-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/14/15 Page 4 of 4
A. A lump sum of $79,444.74 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Elaine
Stout. This amounts 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.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
MICHAEL P. MILMOE
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Gordon Shemin
GORDON SHEMIN
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Phone: (202) 616-4208
Dated: April 22, 2015 Fax: (202) 353-2988

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00026-2
Date issued/filed: 2015-07-17
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/16/2015) regarding 26 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00026-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-026V
Filed: June 16, 2015
(Unpublished)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ELAINE STOUT, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorney Fees and Costs; Stipulation;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Gordon Shemin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
1
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On January 9, 2015, Elaine Stout 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 alleged that as a result of an Influenza (“flu”)
vaccination on January 10, 2013, petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. On April 15, 2015, I issued a ruling on
entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. On April 23, 2015, I issued a
decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on a 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).

Case 1:15-vv-00026-UNJ Document 29 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2
On June 15, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’
Fees and Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties agree upon an award of
$14,657.78. 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.
§ 15(e). I find the proposed amount to be reasonable.
3
Accordingly, I award the total of $14,657.78 as a lump sum in the form of a
check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Michael G. McLaren.
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