VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01314 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01314 Petitioner: Joan Fram Filed: 2017-09-22 Decided: 2019-04-17 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2015-10-13 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 107700 AI-assisted case summary: Joan Fram filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on September 22, 2017. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 13, 2015. Fram stated that the vaccination was administered in the United States and resulted in her condition. She also affirmed that there had been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's left shoulder injury or any other injury or condition. The parties subsequently filed a joint stipulation for damages. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the court. Pursuant to the stipulation, Joan Fram was awarded a lump sum of $107,700.00, payable to her, representing compensation for all eligible damages. The decision was issued on April 17, 2019. Heather M. Bonnet-Hebert of Robert B. Feingold & Associates represented the petitioner, and Christine Mary Becer of the U.S. Department of Justice represented the respondent. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Joan Fram alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on October 13, 2015. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused the alleged injury. The parties filed a joint stipulation for damages, which was approved by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. The stipulation resulted in an award of $107,700.00 to the petitioner. The theory of causation was based on the "Table" as indicated by the initial database fields, but the provided decision text does not detail the specific mechanism or expert testimony regarding causation, focusing instead on the stipulation. The decision date was April 17, 2019. Petitioner's counsel was Heather M. Bonnet-Hebert, and respondent's counsel was Christine Mary Becer. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01314-0 Date issued/filed: 2019-04-17 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/27/2019) regarding 35 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:17-vv-01314-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-1314V Filed: February 27, 2019 UNPUBLISHED JOAN FRAM, Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint v. Stipulation on Damages; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Related to Vaccine Administration HUMAN SERVICES, (SIRVA) Respondent. Heather M. Bonnet-Hebert, Robert B. Feingold & Associates, New Bedford, MA, for petitioner. Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On September 22, 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on October 13, 2015. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed February 26, 2019, at ¶¶ 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccination was administered within the United States, that she suffered from a SIRVA as a result of receiving the flu vaccination, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition. Petition at 6; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine 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-01314-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 7 caused petitioner to suffer from a left shoulder injury or any other injury or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, on February 26, 2019, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned 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 $107,700.00 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 § 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-01314-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/17/19 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:17-vv-01314-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/17/19 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:17-vv-01314-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/17/19 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:17-vv-01314-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/17/19 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:17-vv-01314-UNJ Document 38 Filed 04/17/19 Page 7 of 7