VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00201
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00201
Petitioner: Misty Stephens
Filed: 2018-02-08
Decided: 2019-04-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-12-20
Condition: bursitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 127127

AI-assisted case summary:
Misty Stephens filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 8, 2018, alleging she suffered bursitis as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on December 20, 2016. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on February 4, 2019, conceding that Ms. Stephens was entitled to compensation. The respondent determined that while the injury was not consistent with a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) due to pain radiating beyond the injection site, the preponderance of the medical evidence established that her bursitis was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine. The respondent also agreed that the medical records demonstrated residual effects for more than six months, that the vaccine was administered in the United States, and that Ms. Stephens had not received other compensation for her injuries. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued a ruling on entitlement on February 5, 2019, finding Ms. Stephens entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on April 10, 2019, Chief Special Master Dorsey issued a decision awarding damages. Based on a proffer agreed to by both parties, Ms. Stephens was awarded a lump sum payment of $127,127.86, representing compensation for all available damages. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie of Howie Law, PC, and respondent was represented by Mollie Danielle Gorney of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Misty Stephens alleged bursitis caused by an influenza vaccine administered on December 20, 2016. Respondent conceded causation-in-fact, finding that the preponderance of the medical evidence established the flu vaccine caused petitioner's bursitis, and that she suffered residual effects for more than six months. The respondent's Rule 4(c) report noted the injury was not consistent with SIRVA as pain radiated beyond the injection site. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or detailed clinical facts regarding onset or symptoms. Petitioner was awarded $127,127.86 as a lump sum payment. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey on April 10, 2019, based on a stipulation. Petitioner counsel was John Robert Howie, and respondent counsel was Mollie Danielle Gorney. The theory of causation was determined to be off-Table.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00201-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-03-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/05/2019) regarding 32 Ruling on Entitlement ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00201-UNJ Document 43 Filed 03/13/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0201V
Filed: February 5, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
MISTY STEPHENS,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Causation-In-Fact; Influenza (Flu)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Vaccine; Bursitis
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On February 8, 2018, 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”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on
December 20, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This
means the ruling 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 ruling 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 1:18-vv-00201-UNJ Document 43 Filed 03/13/19 Page 2 of 2
On February 4, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report
at 1. Respondent states that he has determined that petitioner’s alleged injury is not
consistent with SIRVA because her pain was not limited to the shoulder in which the
intramuscular vaccine was administered. Id. at 4. Respondent notes that petitioner
complained of pain that radiated down to her elbow and up to her shoulder and neck
area. Id.
Nevertheless, respondent “has concluded that a preponderance of the medical
evidence establishes that petitioner’s bursitis was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine she
received on December 20, 2016.” Id. at 4-5. Respondent further agrees that the
medical records demonstrate that she suffered the residual effects of her condition for
more than six months. Id. at 5. The records also establish that the vaccine was
administered in the United States (Ex. 2) and that petitioner has not received
compensation in the form of an award or settlement, or filed a civil action, for her
vaccine-related injuries (Ex. 1 at ¶ 32). Thus, respondent agrees that petitioner “has
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act.” Id. at 5.
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

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00201-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-04-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/05/2019) regarding 33 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-00201-UNJ Document 44 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-0201V
Filed: February 5, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
MISTY STEPHENS,
Petitioner,
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v.
Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Bursitis
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On February 8, 2018, 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”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on
December 20, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 5, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner
entitled to compensation for bursitis. On February 4, 2019, respondent filed a Rule 4(c)
report including a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating that petitioner
should be awarded $127,127.86. Proffer at 5. In the Proffer, respondent represented
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 1:18-vv-00201-UNJ Document 44 Filed 04/10/19 Page 2 of 2
that petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Based on the record as a whole, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Id.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner
a lump sum payment of $127,127.86 in the form of a check payable to petitioner,
Misty Stephens. 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