VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01243
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01243
Petitioner: Kalli Kline
Filed: 2015-10-23
Decided: 2016-05-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-10-13
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 85000

AI-assisted case summary:
Kalli Kline filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 23, 2015, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by the influenza vaccine she received on October 13, 2014. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages on February 16, 2016, conceding that petitioner is entitled to compensation. The respondent agreed that petitioner's alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA, that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine administered on October 13, 2014, and that no other causes for the SIRVA were identified. The respondent also confirmed that the statutory six-month sequela requirement was satisfied and that petitioner met all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Based on the evidence of record, the respondent proffered an award of $85,000.00, representing all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a), and stated that petitioner agreed with this proffered award. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found that petitioner was entitled to compensation and awarded the stipulated lump sum of $85,000.00, payable to Kalli Kline. The decision noted that if the petitioner died prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserved the right to move the Court for appropriate relief, with the respondent opposing any award for future medical expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests performed, or treatments received. Petitioner was represented by Andrew Downing of Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, and respondent was represented by Lisa Watts of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kalli Kline alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine received on October 13, 2014. The respondent conceded entitlement to compensation, agreeing that the injury was consistent with SIRVA, caused by the flu vaccine, and that no other causes were identified. The respondent also confirmed satisfaction of the statutory sequela requirement and all legal prerequisites for compensation. The parties stipulated to an award of $85,000.00, representing all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The theory of causation is based on the "Table" of the Vaccine Injury Table, as the respondent conceded the injury was caused by the vaccine. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued the ruling on May 6, 2016. Petitioner was represented by Andrew Downing, and respondent by Lisa Watts.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01243-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-05-06
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/17/2016) regarding 17 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01243-UNJ Document 26 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1243V
Filed: February 17, 2016
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KALLI KLINE, *
*
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. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner.
Lisa Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On October 23, 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
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by the influenza vaccine she
received on October 13, 2014. Petition, ¶¶ 2, 4, 10. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 16, 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. 16).
Specifically, respondent “has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was caused in
fact by the flu vaccine she received on October 13, 2014.” Id. at 3. Respondent further
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-01243-UNJ Document 26 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2
agrees “[n]o other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA have been identified, . . . the statutory
six month sequela requirement has been satisfied, . . . [and] petitioner has satisfied all
legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. (citations omitted).
Additionally, “[b]ased upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that
petitioner should be awarded $85,000.00 representing 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 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, the undersigned awards petitioner a lump sum payment of $85,000.00
in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Kalli Kline.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