VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01147
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01147
Petitioner: Sharon Nathans
Filed: 2015-10-07
Decided: 2016-11-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2012-11-15
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 7, 2015, Sharon Nathans filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on November 15, 2012. She further alleged that she suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's SIRVA or any other injury. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on September 2, 2016, agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Ms. Nathans was awarded a lump sum of $50,000.00, payable to her, representing compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The decision was based on the joint stipulation of the parties. Jeffrey S. Pop represented the petitioner, and Althea Walker Davis represented the respondent. The decision was issued on November 2, 2016.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Sharon Nathans alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on November 15, 2012, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to compensation. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or detailed medical evidence supporting the SIRVA claim. The Special Processing Unit (SPU) was involved. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey adopted the joint stipulation, awarding petitioner $50,000.00 as a lump sum. The decision date was November 2, 2016. Petitioner's counsel was Jeffrey S. Pop, and respondent's counsel was Althea Walker Davis.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01147-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-11-02
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/06/2016) regarding 27 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01147-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1147V
Filed: September 6, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHARON NATHANS, *
*
Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeffrey S. Pop, Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.
Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On October 7, 2015, Sharon Nathans (“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 alleges that she suffered a shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on November 15, 2012. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed September 2,
2016, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of this injury
for more than six months. Petition at 3; Stipulation at ¶ 4. “Respondent denies that the
flu vaccine caused petitioner’s SIRVA or any other injury or her current condition.”
Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on September 2, 2016, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The
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. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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).
1

Case 1:15-vv-01147-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 7
undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court
in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
A lump sum of $50,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of
damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id.
The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 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

Case 1:15-vv-01147-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01147-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01147-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01147-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01147-UNJ Document 36 Filed 11/02/16 Page 7 of 7