VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01013
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01013
Petitioner: Ellisa Morine
Filed: 2017-07-27
Decided: 2019-06-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-09-26
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 47500

AI-assisted case summary:
Ellisa Morine filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that the influenza vaccine she received on September 26, 2014, caused her to suffer from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent initially moved to dismiss, arguing that Ms. Morine did not suffer residual effects for at least six months. However, the court denied this motion, finding that she did meet the six-month requirement. Subsequently, the respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report, conceding that Ms. Morine had satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table, including no prior history of shoulder issues, onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination, pain limited to the injection shoulder, and no other identified condition explaining the pain. Based on the respondent's concession and the court's prior ruling, entitlement to compensation was granted. The parties later stipulated to an award of $47,500.00 for all damages available under the Act. This amount was awarded as a lump sum payment to Ms. Morine.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01013-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-02-27
Pages: 7
Docket text: mpj) Service on parties made. Modified on 2/27/2019 to edit the docket text (fm).PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/23/2019) regarding 26 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Scheduling Order, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 29 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1013V
Filed: January 23, 2019
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ELLISA MORINE, *
*
Petitioner, * Vaccine Act; Fact Ruling;
v. * Six Month Residual Requirement;
* Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Injury Related to Vaccine
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Administration (SIRVA); Special
* Processing Unit (SPU)
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.
Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
FACT RULING ON SIX MONTH REQUIREMENT 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 27, 2017, Elissa Morine (“Ms. Morine” or “petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.
§300aa-10, et. seq, (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleges that she
developed a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result
of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 26, 2014. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
After a review of the petition and supporting documents, respondent filed a
Motion to Dismiss, asserting that petitioner had not established that she suffered from
the residual effects of her alleged vaccine-related injury for more than six months after
1 The undersigned intends to post this order on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This
means the order will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. 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. Because this published order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,
the undersigned is required 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).
.
1

Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 29 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 7
vaccination as required by the Vaccine Act. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; ECF No.
18. For the reasons discussed herein, respondent’s motion is DENIED.
I. Procedural History
On August 8, 2017, petitioner filed seven medical record exhibits as well as an
affidavit and a Statement of Completion. ECF Nos. 7-8. After conducting a review of
the records, on April 5, 2018, respondent filed a status report stating that “he is not
amendable to settlement discussions and would like to defend the case.” ECF No. 17.
Accordingly, on June 4, 2018, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that
the “evidence does not support a finding that petitioner suffered the residual effects of
her alleged SIRVA for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine.”
Motion to Dismiss at 1. Specifically, respondent asserted that contemporaneous
medical records indicate that petitioner’s alleged injury resolved in fewer than six
months post-vaccination. Id. at 8.
On August 1, 2018, petitioner filed her own supplemental affidavit as well as an
affidavit from her husband. Exhibits 9 and 10. Then, on August 6, 2018, petitioner filed
her response to the Motion to Dismiss (“Response”). ECF No. 24. In it, petitioner
argues that “[n]othing in the Vaccine Act or Vaccine Rules requires that every moment
of the six month period be documented solely by contemporaneous medical records.”
Id. at 7. Petitioner argues that because she provided contemporaneous medical
records establishing that she suffered from her alleged injury for more than four months
as well as a reasonable explanation as to why she discontinued seeking medical care,
the requirements of the Vaccine Act have been met. Id. at 7-8.
II. Medical History
Prior to her vaccination, petitioner’s medical history does not reflect any record of
shoulder pain. See generally Exhibit 1 at 1; Exhibit 3 at 41.2 On September 26, 2014,
petitioner received a flu vaccination in her left deltoid. Exhibit 1 at 7.3 In her affidavit,
petitioner states that she felt a sharp pain that extended down the left side of her body
at the time of vaccine administration. Exhibit 7 at ¶ 6. She further states that the pain
continued for the remainder of the day. Id.
On October 16, 2014, petitioner consulted with her primary care provider, Kolleen
Marchand, who served as a physician’s assistant at Westside Medical. Exhibit 3 at 41.
The medical record documenting this consultation reveals that petitioner “states that she
2 Petitioner’s medical history includes the removal of a ganglion cyst, back pain and scoliosis.
3 Although the record of vaccination does not set forth the site of vaccine administration, respondent
concedes, based on the numerous subsequent medical histories, that it was administered in petitioner’s
left arm. Motion to Dismiss at n.2.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 29 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 7
got a flu shot 3 weeks ago and at the time of the shot she had some shooting pains into
her arm/hand and now it has just been very sore.” Id. Petitioner was prescribed
Prednisone and Ms. Marchand indicated that physical therapy and/or imaging would be
considered for “possible injection related bursitis” if the medication proved ineffective.
Id. at 42.
Petitioner returned to Ms. Marchand for a follow-up appointment on October 30,
2014. Id. at 39-40. During her visit, Ms. Morine complained of left shoulder pain that
had been present for five weeks. Id. at 39. Accordingly, petitioner was referred to
physical therapy and Ms. Marchand noted that magnetic resonance imaging (an “MRI”)
would be scheduled. Id. at 40.4
Ms. Morine attended physical therapy from November 11, 2014 through January
12, 2015. Exhibit 5. Notes documenting the initial physical therapy evaluation, which
took place on November 10, 2014, indicate that petitioner received a flu shot in
September and experienced pain and a decrease in range of motion of her left
shoulder. Id. Ms. Morine rated her pain at a 7/10. Id. at 9.
Petitioner presented to Dr. Jonathan Donigan, an orthopedic specialist, on
December 2, 2014 with the chief complaint of left shoulder pain subsequent to her flu
shot. Exhibit 1 at 8. Dr. Donigan assessed petitioner with “left shoulder pain in the
setting of injection” and determined that his findings were consistent with bursitis or
tendonitis. Id.
Ms. Morine’s last physical therapy appointment for her left shoulder took place on
January 12, 2015. Exhibit 5 at 15. The physical therapy notes documenting this visit
indicate that petitioner suffered from soreness “after doing too much.” Id. Further,
although she was making progress, petitioner was “still limited from returning fully to
PLOF [prior level of function] . . .” Id. Although her continued participation in physical
therapy was recommended, petitioner states that she was unable to proceed due to a
lack of insurance coverage and difficulty securing care for her children during
appointments. Exhibit 7 at ¶ 13; Exhibit 9 at ¶ 4. See also Exhibit 3 at 1 (explaining that
her insurance “doesn’t want to pay for any more physical therapy visits.”). Despite
terminating physical therapy, Ms. Morine states that she saw continued improvement as
a result of following a home exercise program. Exhibit 9 at ¶ 5.
In a January 20, 2015 follow-up appointment with Dr. Donigan, it was noted that
petitioner’s shoulder pain was improving. Exhibit 1 at 4. The doctor’s plan included
physical therapy and it was noted that an MRI of petitioner’s left shoulder would be
ordered if petitioner’s condition did not significantly improve. Id.5 The records indicate
4 Although petitioner was scheduled to undergo her MRI on November 19, 2014, she did not attend this
appointment citing concerns over its cost. See Exhibit 3 at 4; Exhibit 9 at ¶ 4.
5 In her supplemental affidavit, petitioner asserts that she did not pursue MRI testing “because my
orthopedic doctor was fairly dismissive about my injury and the need for imaging.” Exhibit 9 at ¶ 4.
3

Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 29 Filed 02/27/19 Page 4 of 7
that petitioner again presented to Dr. Donigan on February 5, 2015 due to shoulder
pain. Id. at 5-6.
Although Ms. Morine presented to Westside Medical on April 9, June 1, June 3,
and October 2, 2015, the medical records do not specifically document any
contemporaneous complaints of left shoulder pain. See Exhibit 3 at 25-38.6
On January 20, 2016, Ms. Morine presented to Ms. Marchand at Westside
Medical with a complaint of low back pain. Exhibit 3 at 22-24. As a result of this
ailment, she participated in physical therapy from January 21, 2016 through February
29, 2016. Exhibit 2 at 7-23. At the time of her initial evaluation, petitioner denied any
other pertinent medical problems. Id. at 7. Further, a January 25, 2016 medical note
indicates that she denied “radiation of pain” into legs, down to the knee, down to the foot
or into arms. Exhibit 3 at 19.
Petitioner’s left shoulder injury was not specifically addressed again until March
10, 2016. Exhibit 3 at 2. On this date, petitioner sent an email to Ms. Marchand at
Westside Medical stating that she had lingering muscle fatigue and shoulder discomfort.
Id. Petitioner also stated her intention to seek compensation from the government and
asked Ms. Marchand to write or sign a letter confirming that she still suffered from
residual symptoms of the flu shot. Id. Ms. Marchand opined that “it would be more
advantageous and appropriate to have the physical therapist write/sign it for you since
they can tell specifically what the deficits or lingering problems are.” Id. There is no
indication that Ms. Morine sought written confirmation from a physical therapist. Id.
Petitioner again presented to Ms. Marchand on April 26, 2017 with the chief
complaint of allergies. Exhibit 8 at 1. However, an addendum to this record indicates
that the petitioner’s chief complaint on this date was left shoulder pain. Id. at 4.
Petitioner reported having a hard time strengthening it at the gym and noted that “it is
much weaker than the left side.” Id. Ms. Marchand discussed petitioner’s symptoms
with her and they discussed activity modifications she could try or possibly attending
another round of physical therapy. Id. The addendum bears an electronic signature
dated April 26, 2017, while the electric signature on the original note is dated June 10,
2017.
III. Affidavit Testimony Regarding Six Month Requirement
As previously noted, despite Ms. Morine’s various appointments at Westside
Medical between April 9, 2015 and January 20, 2016, the medical records do not
document any contemporaneous complaints of left shoulder pain during this period.7
See Exhibit 3 at 22-38. However, in her supplemental affidavit, petitioner states that
6 In addition to setting forth information such as the patient’s name, date of birth and contact information,
the medical records from Westside Medical also include a section entitled “Medical Condition” in the
margin. “Shoulder Pain (Finding)” is consistently included in this section along with all other prior
diagnoses for the visits on the dates referenced.
7 Ms. Morine continued to participate in physical therapy until January 12, 2015.
4

Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 29 Filed 02/27/19 Page 5 of 7
she continued to experience intermittent pain and weakness in her left arm and
shoulder. Exhibit 9 at ¶ 6. Further, petitioner explains that she did not specifically
complain about her ongoing shoulder symptoms during these visits because she did not
think that anything could be done. Id. at ¶ 7.
In her supplemental affidavit, petitioner also explains that her April 26, 2017
medical appointment with Ms. Marchand was scheduled to discuss a number of medical
issues, including her residual shoulder symptoms. Id. at ¶ 9. Petitioner states that
strengthening exercises for her shoulder as well as activity modification were
recommended. Id.
IV. Discussion
Under the Vaccine Act, a petition for compensation must contain “supporting
documentation, demonstrating that the person who suffered [a vaccine related injury] ...
suffered the residual effects or complications of such illness, disability, injury, or
condition for more than 6 months after the administration of the vaccine.” 42 U.S.C. §
300aa–11(c)(1)(D)(i). The burden is on the petitioner to establish, by a preponderance
of the evidence, the persistence of a vaccine-caused injury for longer than six months.
Song v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 31 Fed. Cl. 61, 65–66, aff'd, 41 F.3d 1520
(Fed.Cir.1994). However, dismissal is not appropriate if it appears the parties
reasonably contest the length of time that petitioner has suffered from the effects of his
alleged vaccine injury. See, e.g., Faup v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-87V,
2015 WL 443802, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 13, 2015).
Although a petitioner cannot establish the length or ongoing nature of an injury
merely through her self-assertion, the fact that a petitioner has been discharged from
medical care does not necessarily indicate that there are no remaining or residual
effects from her alleged injury. See, e.g., Herren v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 13-100V, 2014 WL 3889070, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 18, 2014) (finding that
petitioner suffered from residual symptoms that, due to their mild nature, did not require
medical care).
Here, there appears to be no dispute that petitioner received the flu vaccine on
September 26, 2014 and she must therefore show that her alleged injuries lasted more
than six months after administration of the vaccine. Herren, 2014 WL 3889070, at *2;
see also Hinnefeld v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 11-328V, 2012 WL
1608839, at *4-5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2012)(dismissing case where medical
history revealed that petitioner’s Guillain-Barré syndrome resolved less than two months
after onset). Thus, petitioner must demonstrate by preponderant evidence that her
injuries continued through March 26, 2015.
The medical records demonstrate that, in the immediate months following her flu
vaccination, petitioner consistently sought treatment for her left shoulder injury. Indeed,
petitioner’s chief complaint during her October 16 and October 30, 2014 appointments
5

Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 29 Filed 02/27/19 Page 6 of 7
at Westside Medical was shoulder pain. Exhibit 3 at 39, 41. Additionally, petitioner
attended physical therapy from November 10, 2014 through January 12, 2015 for this
injury. See generally Exhibit 5. Further, petitioner consulted with an orthopedist about
her shoulder pain on December 2, 2014, January 20, 2015, and again on February 5,
2015 – four months and ten days after vaccination. Exhibit 1 at 4-6, 8.
However, following petitioner’s February 5, 2015 appointment with her
orthopedist, there are no contemporaneous medical records documenting her shoulder
injury until April 26, 2017. Nevertheless, petitioner’s affidavits provide evidence that she
continued to experience intermittent pain and weakness in her left arm and shoulder
through at least March 26, 2015. See generally Exhibit 7; Exhibit 9. The undersigned
finds that petitioner provided a credible explanation of why she did not broach her
ongoing shoulder symptoms during her medical visits between April 9, 2015 and
January 20, 2016. Specifically, she explained that she did not believe that anything
further could be done to treat her injury. Exhibit 9 at ¶ 7. Given that the only definite
course of treatment was physical therapy, this rationale is understandable. Indeed,
petitioner continued to attend physical therapy until January 12, 2015. Exhibit 5 at 15.
At the time of her last visit, petitioner still experienced soreness and it was determined
that she was limited from returning fully to her prior level of function. Id.
This case represents a “close-call” in terms of finding whether Ms. Morine has
suffered the residual effects of her injuries for more than six months. “In the Vaccine
Program, petitioners are accorded the benefit of close calls.” Roberts v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., No. 09-427V, 2013 WL 5314698, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 29, 2013).
What favors a ruling in petitioner’s favor is not only the affidavit testimony, but also the
medical record documenting petitioner’s April 26, 2017 visit to her primary care provider.
Exhibit 8 at 4. Petitioner states that this medical appointment was scheduled to discuss
a number of medical issues that included her residual shoulder symptoms. Exhibit 9 at
¶ 7. Although this was the first time petitioner sought medical care for her left shoulder
in over two years, and despite petitioner’s proclamation that she would seek
compensation from the government for her injury, the undersigned finds that,
considering all of the facts and circumstances, the evidence preponderates in
petitioner’s favor.
This ruling is also consistent with the undersigned’s knowledge of the clinical
course of SIRVA, based on review of hundreds of cases. Generally, it takes longer than
six months for symptoms associated with SIRVA to resolve. See also B. Atanasoff et
al., Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), 28 Vaccine 8049, 8050
(2010) (noting “[r]eview of the available records showed that shoulder symptoms
persisted . . . from six months to many years.”). Court Exhibit I.
V. Conclusion
Thus, the undersigned finds, based on the record as a whole, that
petitioner has established that she suffered the residual effects of her vaccine-
6

Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 29 Filed 02/27/19 Page 7 of 7
related injury for at least six months as required by the Vaccine Act. Therefore,
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The parties are encouraged to consider an informal resolution of this claim.
Accordingly, by no later than Thursday, February 28, 2019, petitioner shall
communicate a demand to respondent and file a status report updating the court
on the parties’ settlement discussions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01013-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-05-29
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/01/2019) regarding 31 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/29/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1013V
Filed: April 1, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
ELLISA MORINE,
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Petitioner, Ruling on Entitlement; Causation-In-
v. Fact; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH Administration (SIRVA)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.
Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 27, 2017, Elissa Morine (“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 the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she
received on September 26, 2014, caused her to suffer from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 4, 2018, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition, arguing that
the evidence did not support a finding that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her
alleged SIRVA for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine, and as
such, she was unable to fulfill the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D). (ECF
1 Because this unpublished ruling 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).
1

Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 38 Filed 05/29/19 Page 2 of 2
No. 18.) On January 23, 2019, the undersigned issued an Order Denying Respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss and Fact Ruling on Six Month Requirement, “finding that petitioner
has established that she suffered the residual effects of her vaccine related injury for at
least six months as required by the Vaccine Act” and denying respondent’s motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 26 at 6-7).
On March 29, 2019, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report stating that “[m]edical
personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs (“DICP”), Department of
Health and Human Services, have reviewed the evidence filed in this case, as well as
the Fact Ruling issued by the Chief Special Master. Recognizing that the Chief Special
Master’s factual finding that petitioner suffered the residual effects of her vaccine-
related injury for at least six months is the law of the case, respondent advises that he
will not defend the case on other grounds during further proceedings before the Office
of Special Masters. While preserving his right to appeal the Chief Special Master’s
January 23, 2019 Fact Ruling on the Six Month Requirement, respondent submits that
petitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and
the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for SIRVA. See 42 C.F.R §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)
and (c)(10). Respondent requests a ruling on the record regarding petitioner’s
entitlement to compensation.” Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 2.
Respondent further states “[b]ased on the medical record evidence submitted in
this case, DICP has concluded that petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine
Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or
dysfunction of her left shoulder; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt
of an intramuscular vaccination; the pain was limited to the shoulder in which the
vaccine was administered; and, no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial
neuritis, has been identified to explain petitioner’s right shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§
100.3(a), (c)(10). In addition, the Chief Special Master’s fact ruling concluded that
petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months.10 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore, based on the record as it now stands and
subject to his right to appeal the Fact Ruling, respondent does not dispute that petitioner
has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
13.” Id. at 7.
In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01013-2
Date issued/filed: 2019-06-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/16/2019) regarding 34 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01013-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1013V
Filed: April 16, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
ELLISA MORINE,
Petitioner,
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v.
Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES,
Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.
Heather Lynn Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On July 27, 2017, Ellisa Morine (“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 the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she
received on September 26, 2014, caused her to suffer from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 1, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On April 16, 2019, respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $47,500.00. Proffer at
1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the
action in this case, undersigned is required 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).
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-01013-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/19 Page 2 of 2
1. In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered
award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that petitioner is
entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, the undersigned awards
petitioner a lump sum payment of $47,500.00 in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, Ellisa Morine. This amount represents compensation for all damages that
would be available under § 15(a).
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