VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00366
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00366
Petitioner: Gerald Hines
Filed: 2019-03-11
Decided: 2021-04-01
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-09-15
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 40000

AI-assisted case summary:
Gerald Hines filed a petition on March 11, 2019, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 15, 2017. Mr. Hines claimed that his injury met the Table definition for SIRVA or, alternatively, was caused-in-fact or significantly aggravated by the vaccine. He further alleged that he received the vaccine in the United States, suffered residual effects for more than six months, and had not filed a civil action or received other compensation for his SIRVA. The respondent denied that Mr. Hines suffered the onset of his alleged SIRVA within the Table timeframe and denied that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated his alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, further denying that his current disabilities were a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, the parties filed a joint stipulation on March 2, 2021. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as his decision. Pursuant to the stipulation, Mr. Hines was awarded $40,000.00 as a lump sum, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages available under Section 15(a). The decision does not describe the specific onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent was represented by Mallori Browne Openchowski.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Gerald Hines alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on September 15, 2017. The theory was that the SIRVA met the Table definition or was caused-in-fact or significantly aggravated by the vaccine. Respondent denied the SIRVA onset was within the Table timeframe and denied causation or aggravation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation, awarding $40,000.00 as a lump sum. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the breakdown of the award beyond the total lump sum. Petitioner's counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent's counsel was Mallori Browne Openchowski. The decision date was April 1, 2021.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00366-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-04-01
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/02/2021) regarding 32 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00366-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/01/21 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0366V
UNPUBLISHED
GERALD HINES, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 2, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration
Respondent. (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On March 11, 2019, Gerald Hines 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) which meets the Table definition for SIRVA, or in the alternative
was caused-in-fact or significantly aggravated by the influenza vaccine he received on
September 15, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 8; Stipulation, filed at March 2, 2021, ¶¶ 1-2, 4.
Petitioner further alleges he received the vaccine in the United States, that he suffered
the residual effects of his SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither he nor any
other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his SIRVA. Petition at ¶¶
1, 8-9; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that [P]etitioner suffered the onset of his
alleged SIRVA within the Table timeframe; denies that the flu vaccine caused or
significantly aggravated [P]etitioner’s alleged shoulder injury or any other injury and
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 1:19-vv-00366-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/01/21 Page 2 of 8
further denies that his current disabilities are a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.”
Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on March 2, 2021, 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 $40,000.00 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 Section 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 1:19-vv-00366-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/01/21 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00366-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/01/21 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00366-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/01/21 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00366-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/01/21 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00366-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/01/21 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00366-UNJ Document 36 Filed 04/01/21 Page 8 of 8