Barbara van Esler v. HHS - Influenza, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) (2019)

Filed 2017-10-24Decided 2019-09-11Vaccine Influenza
compensated$80,000

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

On October 24, 2017, Barbara Van Esler filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that the influenza vaccine she received on October 5, 2016, caused her to develop a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu immunization caused the alleged SIRVA.

On June 11, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that compensation should be awarded. The Chief Special Master, Nora Beth Dorsey, found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court.

Barbara Van Esler was awarded a lump sum of $80,000.00, payable to her, as compensation for all items of damages. Petitioner's counsel was Maximillian J.

Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent's counsel was Ryan Daniel Pyles of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical examinations, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the specific mechanism of injury. The public decision also does not name any medical experts for either party.

Theory of causation

Petitioner Barbara Van Esler alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on October 5, 2016, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation on June 11, 2019, agreeing to an award of compensation. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey adopted the stipulation as the decision of the Court. Petitioner was awarded a lump sum of $80,000.00. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury, stating only that the respondent denied causation. The case was resolved via stipulation, and the public text does not provide further details on the evidence presented or the specific reasoning for the award beyond the agreement of the parties.

Source PDFs 2 total · 1 downloaded