VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00299
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00299
Petitioner: Joshua Howard
Filed: 2016-03-07
Decided: 2017-08-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-10-30
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 55000

AI-assisted case summary:
Joshua Howard filed a petition on March 7, 2016, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on October 30, 2014. Mr. Howard further alleged that he experienced residual effects from this condition for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the influenza vaccine caused Mr. Howard's alleged SIRVA or any other injury. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on July 17, 2017. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Mr. Howard a lump sum of $55,000.00, payable by check, intended to compensate for all damages available under the Act. The decision noted that it was originally filed on July 17, 2017, and was designated "not to be published" but would be posted on the Court of Federal Claims' website. The decision also stated that parties had fourteen days to request redaction of confidential information. Andrew M. Krueger represented the petitioner, and Heather L. Pearlman represented the respondent. Judgment was to be entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Joshua Howard alleged that his October 30, 2014, influenza vaccine caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation filed July 17, 2017, agreeing to an award of $55,000.00. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision. The public text does not detail the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or clinical findings supporting the SIRVA diagnosis or its alleged link to the vaccine. The award was a lump sum of $55,000.00. The decision date was August 23, 2017. Petitioner's counsel was Andrew M. Krueger; Respondent's counsel was Heather L. Pearlman.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00299-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-08-23
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/17/2017) Regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00299-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-299V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JOSHUA HOWARD, * Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: July 17, 2017
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
* Administration (“SIRVA”).
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew M. Krueger, Krueger & Hernandez, S.C., Middleton, WI, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 7, 2016, Joshua Howard filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that he
suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as a result of his
October 30, 2014, influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petitioner further alleges that he has experienced the
residual effects of this condition for more than six months.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This
means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged
or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision in its present form will be
available. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).

Case 1:16-vv-00299-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged SIRVA or any other
injury. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a
stipulation (filed on July 17, 2017) that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision
should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation
(as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the
terms set forth therein.
The stipulation awards:
 A lump sum of $55,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a) of the Act.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:16-vv-00299-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/23/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00299-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/23/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00299-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/23/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00299-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/23/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00299-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/23/17 Page 7 of 7