VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00264
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00264
Petitioner: Sharon Cain
Filed: 2021-12-29
Decided: 2022-01-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-09-26
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 60000

AI-assisted case summary:
Sharon Cain filed a petition on December 29, 2021, alleging that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 26, 2015. She further alleged that the residual effects of this injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent denied that Ms. Cain met her burden to demonstrate a SIRVA table injury, and the case proceeded to a hearing. However, on December 21, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to settle the matter and award Ms. Cain compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Ms. Cain a lump sum payment of $60,000.00, representing all elements of compensation to which she was entitled under the Vaccine Act. Petitioner was represented by Joseph Alexander Vuckovich of Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A., and Respondent was represented by Alexis B. Babcock of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision was issued on January 24, 2022.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Sharon Cain alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on September 26, 2015, with residual effects lasting over six months. Respondent denied a SIRVA table injury. The parties filed a stipulation on December 21, 2021, agreeing to settle the case. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision. The award was a lump sum of $60,000.00, representing all elements of compensation under the Vaccine Act. The public text does not specify the mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or detailed clinical findings. The case was filed on December 29, 2021, and the decision was issued on January 24, 2022. Petitioner's counsel was Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, and Respondent's counsel was Alexis B. Babcock.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00264-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-01-24
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/29/2021) regarding 79 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kav) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00264-UNJ Document 83 Filed 01/24/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-264V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SHARON CAIN, *
* Filed: December 29, 2021
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A., Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 23, 2017, Sharon Cain filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that she suffered
from a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as a result of receiving an influenza
vaccine administered on September 26, 2015. Id. at 1–2. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he
experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Id. at 2.
1 Although not formally designated for publication, this Decision will be posted on the United States Court of Federal
Claims website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the Decision
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 published 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 will be available to the public
in its current form. 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”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:17-vv-00264-UNJ Document 83 Filed 01/24/22 Page 2 of 2
Respondent denies that Petitioner has met her burden to demonstrate she suffered a SIRVA
table injury, and the matter went to hearing in May 2021. However, on December 21, 2021, the
parties filed a stipulation maintaining their positions but agreeing that the issues before them can
be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. ECF No. 78.
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 payment of $60,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner Sharon
Cain. This amount represents compensation for all elements of compensation under
Vaccine Act Section 15(a) to which Petitioner is entitled.
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
Chief 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