VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00206
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00206
Petitioner: Carin Ing-Marie Malkin
Filed: 2015-03-02
Decided: 2015-11-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-09-30
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 70000

AI-assisted case summary:
Carin Ing-Marie Malkin filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 2, 2015. The petition alleged that an Influenza vaccine administered on September 30, 2013, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. On June 30, 2015, the respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) Report conceding that the evidence established that the injury to petitioner's right shoulder was caused-in-fact by the administration of the September 30, 2013, flu vaccine and was not due to unrelated factors. Based on this concession and the evidence, Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell found that Ms. Malkin was entitled to compensation. The parties subsequently filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, agreeing to a lump sum payment of $70,000.00 for all damages. This amount was awarded as a lump sum check payable to petitioner. On October 13, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey approved a total award of $9,049.05 for attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid as a lump sum in a check jointly payable to petitioner and her counsel, Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar. Petitioner's counsel was Diana L. Sedar of Maglio Christopher and Toale. Respondent's counsel was Ann D. Martin of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Carin Ing-Marie Malkin alleged that an Influenza vaccine administered on September 30, 2013, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent conceded that the injury was caused-in-fact by the vaccine and not due to unrelated factors. The Special Master found entitlement based on this concession. The award for all damages was $70,000.00, paid as a lump sum. Attorneys' fees and costs were stipulated at $9,049.05, paid as a lump sum jointly to petitioner and counsel. Petitioner was represented by Diana L. Sedar, and respondent by Ann D. Martin. Chief Special Masters Denise Kathryn Vowell and Nora Beth Dorsey presided over the entitlement and fees decisions, respectively. The theory of causation was off-Table.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00206-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-07-27
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/30/2015) regarding 17 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00206-UNJ Document 21 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0206V
Filed: June 30, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CARIN ING-MARIE MALKIN, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
* Influenza (“flu”) vaccine; Shoulder Injury
v. * Related to Vaccine Administration
* (“SIRVA”); Damages Decision Based
* on Proffer; Special Processing Unit
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana L. Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Ann D. Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
1
DECISION
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On March 2, 2015, Carin Ing-Marie Malkin 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 September 30, 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 June 30, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report [“Res. Report”], in which
she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Res. Report at 3.
Specifically, respondent “has concluded that a preponderance of evidence establishes
1 Because this unpublished decision 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-00206-UNJ Document 21 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 4
that the injury to petitioner’s right shoulder was caused-in-fact by the administration of
her September 30, 2013, flu vaccine, and that [the] injury is not due to factors unrelated
to [that] administration.” Id. Respondent “recommends that compensation be awarded
under the terms of the Vaccine Act for petitioner’s right shoulder injury.” Id.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Additionally, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation (“Proffer”)
detailing compensation for all elements of compensation to which petitioner 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 $70,000.00 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
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-00206-UNJ Document 21 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
____________________________________
)
CARIN ING-MARIE MALKIN, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 15-206V
v. ) Chief Special Master Vowell
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
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
$70,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be 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 $70,000.00 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.

Case 1:15-vv-00206-UNJ Document 21 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 4
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
GLENN A. MACLEOD
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ ANN D. MARTIN
ANN D. MARTIN
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) 307-1815
DATED: June 30, 2015
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00206-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-11-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/13/2015) regarding 26 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00206-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0206V
Filed: October 13, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CARIN ING-MARIE MALKIN, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Stipulation
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana L. Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Ann D. Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
1
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On March 2, 2015, Carin Ing-Marie Malkin (“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”). The petition alleged that as a result of an
Influenza (“flu”) vaccination on September 30, 2013, petitioner suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). On June 30, 2015, the undersigned issued
a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer.
On October 13, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys’
Fees and Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties stipulate to an award of
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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 (2012)). 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, the undersigned agrees that
the identified material fits within this definition, that material will be removed 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 (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-00206-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2
$9,049.05. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner filed a statement that she
incurred no out-of-pocket expenses related to the litigation of this matter.
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42
U.S.C. § 300 aa-15(e). Based on the reasonableness of petitioner’s request and the
lack of any objection by respondent, the undersigned GRANTS the request for approval
and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.
3
Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $9,049.05 as a lump sum
in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Diana
L. Stadelnikas Sedar.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
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