Ruth Thomas v. HHS - Influenza, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) (2020)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Ruth Thomas filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on April 17, 2019. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by the influenza vaccine she received on October 16, 2017.
Ms. Thomas stated that she received the vaccine in the United States and suffered residual effects for more than six months.
She also affirmed that neither she nor any other party had filed a civil action or received compensation for her alleged vaccine-caused SIRVA. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner's left shoulder injury, any other injury, or her current condition, and denied that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury.
Despite the respondent's denial, on September 2, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation for an award of compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H.
Corcoran reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as his decision. Pursuant to the stipulation, Ms.
Thomas was awarded a lump sum of $50,000.00, payable by check to the Petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages. The decision was issued on October 2, 2020.
Petitioner was represented by Maximillian J. Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent was represented by Kimberly Shubert Davey of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Ruth Thomas alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused in fact by an influenza vaccine received on October 16, 2017. The respondent denied that the vaccine caused the injury or a SIRVA Table injury. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which was approved by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on October 2, 2020. The stipulation resulted in an award of $50,000.00. The specific theory of causation and any supporting medical experts or evidence were not detailed in the public decision, which was based on a stipulation. The decision does not specify if the SIRVA was considered an "on-Table" or "off-Table" injury, but the stipulation implies an "off-Table" determination or a settlement without prejudice to that determination.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00581