VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00290
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00290
Petitioner: Mary Agresti
Filed: 2016-12-21
Decided: 2017-04-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-11-06
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
Mary Agresti filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on December 21, 2016, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by her influenza vaccination on November 6, 2014. She further alleged that she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months and that there had been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her condition. The respondent denied that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner's alleged SIRVA or any other injury or her current condition. Nevertheless, the parties filed a joint stipulation for damages, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Mary Agresti was awarded a lump sum of $50,000.00 in compensation for all items of damages, payable to petitioner. The decision was issued on April 26, 2017. Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey S. Pop of Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, and respondent was represented by Robert Paul Coleman, III of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Mary Agresti alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by her November 6, 2014 influenza vaccination. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for damages, which was adopted by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. Petitioner was awarded $50,000.00 as a lump sum for all items of damages. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or detailed clinical facts supporting the SIRVA diagnosis or causation. The decision date was April 26, 2017. Petitioner's counsel was Jeffrey S. Pop, and respondent's counsel was Robert Paul Coleman, III.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00290-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-04-26
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/21/2016) regarding 28 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00290-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-290V
Filed: December 21, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MARY AGRESTI, *
*
Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v. * Influenza;
* Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On March 1, 2016, 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”) caused by her November 6, 2014 influenza vaccination.
Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed December 21, 2016, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that
she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months and that there
has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her
condition. Petition at 3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that the influenza
vaccine is the cause of petitioner’s alleged SIRVA, and/or any other injury or her current
condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on December 21, 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).

Case 1:16-vv-00290-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/26/17 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 1:16-vv-00290-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/26/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00290-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/26/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00290-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/26/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00290-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/26/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00290-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/26/17 Page 7 of 7