VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01129
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01129
Petitioner: Jamie Saracino
Filed: 2015-10-06
Decided: 2016-05-31
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-11-25
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 130439

AI-assisted case summary:
Jamie Saracino filed a petition on October 6, 2015, alleging that an influenza vaccination received on November 25, 2014, caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages, conceding that petitioner's alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA and was caused in fact by the flu vaccine received on or about November 25, 2014. The respondent also stated that no other cause for the injury was identified, that the injury lasted more than six months, and that petitioner met all legal requirements for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found petitioner entitled to compensation. The decision awarded Jamie Saracino a lump sum payment of $130,439.12, representing all elements of compensation available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests performed, treatments received, or the specific mechanism of injury. Franklin John Caldwell, Jr. represented the petitioner, and Traci R. Patton represented the respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jamie Saracino received an influenza vaccination on November 25, 2014. She alleged this vaccine caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent conceded that the injury was consistent with SIRVA and was caused in fact by the flu vaccine. No other cause was identified, and the injury lasted more than six months. Petitioner met all legal prerequisites for compensation. The case was decided based on a stipulation/proffer. The respondent proffered an award of $130,439.12, representing all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a), which petitioner accepted. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued the ruling on entitlement and awarded damages on May 31, 2016. The theory of causation is based on the "Table" category of the Vaccine Injury Table, specifically SIRVA. The public decision does not name specific medical experts or detail the mechanism of injury beyond its consistency with SIRVA.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01129-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-05-31
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/28/2016) regarding 21 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01129-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1129V
Filed: April 28, 2016
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JAMIE SARACINO, *
*
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. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Franklin John Caldwell, Jr., Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On October 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 the influenza vaccination that she
received on November 25, 2014 caused her to suffer a shoulder injury. Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 28, 2016, respondent filed a 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 and Proffer on Damages at 1 (ECF No. 20).
Specifically, respondent “has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was caused in
fact by the flu vaccine she received on or about November 25, 2014.” Id. at 4.
Respondent further indicates that no other cause of petitioner’s injury has been
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-01129-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 2
identified, that she suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months, and that
petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.
Additionally, “[b]ased upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that
petitioner should be awarded $130,439.12, which represents all elements of
compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).”
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages at 4. 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 5, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum payment of
$130,439.12 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Jamie Saracino.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.
2