VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01136 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01136 Petitioner: Andrew Elefant Filed: 2016-01-22 Decided: 2016-05-04 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2014-09-11 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 95000 AI-assisted case summary: Andrew Elefant filed a petition on October 7, 2015, alleging that his September 11, 2014, influenza vaccination caused 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 on January 21, 2016, conceding that the petitioner was entitled to compensation. The respondent agreed that the petitioner's alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA and was caused in fact by the flu vaccine received on September 11, 2014. The respondent also confirmed that no other cause for the injury was identified and that the statutory requirements for residual effects lasting more than six months were met. Based on the evidence and the respondent's concession, Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found entitlement. The respondent proffered an award of $95,000.00, representing all elements of compensation, and the petitioner agreed with this amount. Chief Special Master Dorsey awarded Andrew Elefant a lump sum payment of $95,000.00, payable by check, as compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The decision was based on the parties' proffer and concession. Petitioner's counsel was Maximillian Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent's counsel was Claudia Gangi of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset, specific symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the medical expert witnesses involved. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Andrew Elefant alleged that his September 11, 2014, influenza vaccination caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent conceded entitlement, agreeing that the injury was consistent with SIRVA and caused in fact by the flu vaccine, with no other cause identified. The respondent also confirmed that the statutory requirements for residual effects lasting more than six months were met. The case was decided based on the parties' proffer and concession, without extensive medical expert testimony detailed in the public decision. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey awarded $95,000.00 for all elements of compensation. The theory of causation is considered Off-Table. Petitioner was represented by Maximillian Muller, and respondent was represented by Claudia Gangi. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01136-0 Date issued/filed: 2016-05-04 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/22/2016) regarding 14 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:15-vv-01136-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-1136V Filed: January 22, 2016 Unpublished * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANDREW ELEFANT, * * 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. Claudia Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On October 7, 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 he suffered a shoulder injury caused in fact by his September 11, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On January 21, 2016, 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 and Proffer on Damages at 1. 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 he received on September 11, 2014.” Id. at 3-4. Respondent further agrees that no other cause for petitioner’s injury has been identified and that she has met the statutory 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-01136-UNJ Document 24 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2 requirements by suffering the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. at 4. Additionally, “[b]ased upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $95,000.00, 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 4, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum payment of $95,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Andrew Elefant.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.