VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00268
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00268
Petitioner: Charles A. Hightower
Filed: 2017-02-24
Decided: 2018-12-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-01-02
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
Charles A. Hightower filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 24, 2017, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of a seasonal influenza vaccine he received on January 2, 2015. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused the petitioner's alleged shoulder injury. However, on October 3, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The Special Master found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awarded Charles A. Hightower a lump sum of $50,000.00, representing compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. This decision addresses the damages awarded based on the joint stipulation. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Petitioner was represented by Edward M. Kraus, and respondent was represented by Ilene Clair Albala. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Charles A. Hightower alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a January 2, 2015, influenza vaccination. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation on October 3, 2018, agreeing to an award of compensation. The Special Master adopted the stipulation, awarding a lump sum of $50,000.00 for all damages under the Vaccine Act. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. The case was handled by petitioner's counsel Edward M. Kraus and respondent's counsel Ilene Clair Albala, with Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issuing the decision on December 6, 2018.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00268-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-12-06
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/03/2018) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00268-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/06/18 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-0268V
Filed: October 3, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
CHARLES A. HIGHTOWER,
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
Petitioner,
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
v.
Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.
Ilene Clair Albala, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On February 24, 2017, 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 he suffered a shoulder injury as a result of a
seasonal influenza vaccine he received on January 2, 2015. Petition at 1; Stipulation,
filed October 3, 2018, at ¶¶ 2-4. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
administered in the United States, that he suffered the residual effects of the 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 his condition. Petition at 2, 4-5; Stipulation at ¶¶ 2-5.
“Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury or
any other injury or his current condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on October 3, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned
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 1:17-vv-00268-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/06/18 Page 2 of 7
finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding
damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned
awards 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 1:17-vv-00268-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/06/18 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00268-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/06/18 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00268-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/06/18 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00268-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/06/18 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00268-UNJ Document 47 Filed 12/06/18 Page 7 of 7