VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01566 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01566 Petitioner: Eardeal Miller Filed: 2016-11-23 Decided: 2019-07-29 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2015-12-06 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 15000 AI-assisted case summary: Eardeal Miller filed a petition for compensation with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on November 23, 2016. She alleged that she received an influenza vaccination on or about December 6, 2015, and that this vaccination caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged SIRVA or any other injury, and denied that her current disabilities were a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. The parties reached a stipulation to settle the issues, agreeing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. Under the terms of the stipulation, the court adopted the agreement as the decision awarding damages. Eardeal Miller was awarded a lump sum of $15,000.00 for all damages available under the program. The decision was entered on July 29, 2019. Petitioner was represented by Milton C. Ragsdale of Ragsdale LLC, and respondent was represented by Colleen C. Hartley of the United States Department of Justice. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen issued the decision. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Eardeal Miller alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on or about December 6, 2015. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused the alleged SIRVA or any other injury, and denied that the alleged current disabilities were a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. The parties stipulated to settle the claim, with the respondent denying a Table injury. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or detailed medical evidence. Eardeal Miller was awarded $15,000.00 as a lump sum for all damages. The decision was entered on July 29, 2019, by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. Petitioner's counsel was Milton C. Ragsdale, and respondent's counsel was Colleen C. Hartley. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01566-0 Date issued/filed: 2019-07-29 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/24/2019) regarding 72 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:16-vv-01566-UNJ Document 76 Filed 07/29/19 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: June 24, 2019 * * * * * * * * * * * * * EARDEAL MILLER, * UNPUBLISHED * Petitioner, * No. 16-1566V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”); Shoulder AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Injury Related to Vaccine * Administration (“SIRVA”); Respondent. * Stipulation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Milton C. Ragsdale, Ragsdale LLC, Birmingham, AL, for petitioner. Colleen C. Hartley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON STIPULATION1 On November 23, 2016, Eardeal Miller (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation within the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner received an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on or about December 6, 2015. Stipulation filed June 24, 2019 (ECF No. 71) at ¶ 2. Petitioner alleged that as a consequence of that flu vaccination, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Id. at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleged that she suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Id. 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the opinion is posted on the Court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). An objecting party must provide the Court with a proposed redacted version of the opinion. Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the Court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 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. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. Case 1:16-vv-01566-UNJ Document 76 Filed 07/29/19 Page 2 of 7 On June 24, 2019, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation. Respondent denies that petitioner suffered a Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged SIRVA or any other injury; and further denies that her alleged current disabilities are a sequela of a vaccine- related injury. Id. at ¶ 6. Maintaining their respective positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding compensation according to the terms of the stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7. The stipulation awards: 1) A lump sum of $15,000.00, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner, representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I find the stipulation reasonable and I adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 2 Case 1:16-vv-01566-UNJ Document 76 Filed 07/29/19 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01566-UNJ Document 76 Filed 07/29/19 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01566-UNJ Document 76 Filed 07/29/19 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01566-UNJ Document 76 Filed 07/29/19 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01566-UNJ Document 76 Filed 07/29/19 Page 7 of 7