VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01509 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01509 Petitioner: Martha Shackelford Filed: 2019-06-26 Decided: 2019-10-22 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2015-08-26 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 32500 AI-assisted case summary: Martha Shackelford filed a petition on June 26, 2019, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccination on August 26, 2015. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused her alleged SIRVA or any other injury. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the issues and enter a decision awarding Petitioner compensation. The stipulation awarded Martha Shackelford a lump sum of $32,500, representing compensation for all damages available under the program. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision in awarding damages. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical examinations, or treatments. Petitioner was represented by Bruce Slane of The Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., and the respondent was represented by Colleen Hartley of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Martha Shackelford alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on August 26, 2015. Respondent denied causation. The parties entered into a stipulation to settle the case, agreeing to an award of compensation. The Special Master adopted the stipulation. The award was a lump sum of $32,500. The theory of causation was based on the Vaccine Injury Table (SIRVA). No specific medical experts or detailed clinical information regarding the mechanism of injury were described in the public decision. The decision was issued by Special Master Katherine E. Oler on October 22, 2019. Petitioner's counsel was Bruce Slane, and Respondent's counsel was Colleen Hartley. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01509-0 Date issued/filed: 2019-10-22 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/26/19) regarding 79 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (aa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:16-vv-01509-UNJ Document 85 Filed 10/22/19 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-1509V (UNPUBLISHED) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MARTHA SHACKELFORD, * * * Special Master Katherine E. Oler Petitioner, * * Filed: June 26, 2019 v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; * Influenza; SIRVA HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Bruce Slane, The Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner. Colleen Hartley, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On November 14, 2016, Martha Shackelford (“Petitioner”) filed2 a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).3 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as a result of receiving an influenza vaccination on August 26, 2015. Id. Respondent denies “that the flu vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s alleged SIRVA or any other injury.” See Stip. ¶ 6, dated June 26, 2019, ECF No. 78. Nonetheless both parties, while 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision 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 (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 Decision in its present form will be available. Id. 2 This matter was initially assigned to Chief Special Master Dorsey in the Special Processing Unit (SPU) and then to Special Master Roth before being re-assigned to my docket on January 11, 2018. 3 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa. Case 1:16-vv-01509-UNJ Document 85 Filed 10/22/19 Page 2 of 7 maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a joint stipulation filed June 26, 2019 that the issues before them can 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 is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein. The stipulation awards: 1. A lump sum of $32,500 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Stip. ¶ 8. This award represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above. 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Katherine E. Oler Katherine E. Oler Special Master 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice of decision not to seek review. Case 1:16-vv-01509-UNJ Document 85 Filed 10/22/19 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01509-UNJ Document 85 Filed 10/22/19 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01509-UNJ Document 85 Filed 10/22/19 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01509-UNJ Document 85 Filed 10/22/19 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01509-UNJ Document 85 Filed 10/22/19 Page 7 of 7