VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00701
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00701
Petitioner: Adele Hamilton
Filed: 2015-07-06
Decided: 2015-12-01
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-01-11
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 6, 2015, Adele Hamilton filed a Vaccine Program petition after receiving an influenza vaccine on January 11, 2013. She alleged that the vaccination caused a shoulder injury.

Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) report and damages proffer on December 1, 2015. Respondent conceded entitlement, stating that Hamilton's alleged injury was consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or SIRVA, that no other cause had been identified, and that the statutory requirements were met. The public ruling does not provide a detailed treatment or onset narrative beyond the SIRVA concession.

Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey granted entitlement and awarded damages on December 1, 2015. Hamilton received a lump sum of $50,000.00, payable to her, representing all damages available under section 15(a). A later December 28, 2015 decision awarded attorney fees and costs separately and did not change the injury-compensation award. Hamilton was represented by Maximillian Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP.

Theory of causation field:
Influenza vaccine (January 11, 2013) causing shoulder injury/SIRVA. COMPENSATED. Respondent conceded injury consistent with SIRVA, no other cause identified, and statutory requirements satisfied in combined Rule 4(c) report/proffer. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey granted entitlement and damages on December 1, 2015. Award: $50,000.00 lump sum payable to Adele Hamilton for all section 15(a) damages; attorney-fee award was separate. Attorney: Maximillian Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00701-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-04-06
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/01/2015) regarding 20 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00701-UNJ Document 28 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-701V
Filed: December 1, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADELE HAMILTON, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Damages
* Decision Based on Proffer;
* Concession; Influenza (“Flu”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccination; Shoulder Injury Related
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”);
* Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maximillian Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 6, 2015, 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” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury caused in fact
by her January 11, 2013 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to
the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On December 1, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report and Proffer on
Damages in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “believes that petitioner’s
alleged injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”).” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that no other cause for petitioner’s
injury has been identified, that she has met the statutory requirements by suffering
1 Because this unpublished ruling and decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, the undersigned intends 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified
material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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 (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-00701-UNJ Document 28 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 2
Additionally, “[b]ased upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that
petitioner should be awarded $50,000.00, which represents all elements of
compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).”
compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 3.
Respondent represents that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. Further, based on
the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award
as stated in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages.
Pursuant to the terms stated in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on
Damages at 4, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum payment of
$50,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Adele Hamilton.3 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 “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
pain and suffering, and future lost wages.” Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 4.
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00701-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-05-02
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/28/2015) regarding 25 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00701-UNJ Document 29 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-701V
Filed: December 28, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADELE HAMILTON, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Stipulation
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maximillian Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 6, 2015, 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”]. Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury caused in fact by her
January 11, 2013 influenza vaccination. On December 1, 2015, the undersigned issued
a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on respondent’s proffer.
On December 23, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties stipulate to an
award of $14,722.12. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel
represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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 (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-00701-UNJ Document 29 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2
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.
Accordingly, the undersigned awards the total of $14,722.123 as a lump
sum in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel
Muller Brazil, LLP.
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 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.