VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01913
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01913
Petitioner: Tina M. Dilbeck
Filed: 2020-06-09
Decided: 2020-07-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-12-20
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 71280

AI-assisted case summary:
Tina M. Dilbeck filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on June 9, 2020, alleging she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of her December 20, 2017 influenza vaccination. Petitioner stated the vaccine was administered in the United States, that she experienced residual effects for over six months, and that she had no prior award or settlement for this injury. The respondent denied that petitioner suffered a SIRVA Table injury or that the flu vaccine caused her injury. Despite these denials, the parties filed a joint stipulation on June 3, 2020, agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as the decision awarding damages. Petitioner was awarded a lump sum of $71,280.50, payable to Petitioner, representing compensation for all items of damages available under § 15(a). The decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical treatments, or expert witnesses involved in reaching this stipulation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Tina M. Dilbeck alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following her December 20, 2017 influenza vaccination. The respondent denied a SIRVA Table injury and that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted as the decision. Petitioner was awarded $71,280.50. The public text indicates a "Table" theory of causation was considered, but does not detail the specific mechanism, expert testimony, or evidence presented by either party. The decision does not describe the specific onset, symptoms, or treatments for the alleged SIRVA.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01913-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-10
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/09/2020) regarding 33 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01913-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/10/20 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1913V
UNPUBLISHED
TINA M. DILBECK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 9, 2020
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
HUMAN SERVICES, Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA)
Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.
Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On December 13, 2018, Tina Dilbeck 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 her December 20, 2017 influneza (“flu”)
vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed June 3, 2020, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further
alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that she suffered the
residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior
award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Stipulation at
¶¶ 3-5; see Petition at ¶¶4, 23-25. “Respondent denies that petitioner suffered a SIRVA
Table injury; denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or
any other injury; and further denies that petitioner’s current disabilities are sequelae of a
vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
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). 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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 1:18-vv-01913-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/10/20 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on June 3, 2020, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth
therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $71,280.50 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.
I approve 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/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
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 1:18-vv-01913-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/10/20 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:18-vv-01913-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/10/20 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:18-vv-01913-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/10/20 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:18-vv-01913-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/10/20 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:18-vv-01913-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/10/20 Page 7 of 7