VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00600
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00600
Petitioner: Sharon Fisher
Filed: 2019-04-23
Decided: 2021-03-29
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-11-07
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccination (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 30000

AI-assisted case summary:
Sharon Fisher filed a petition on April 23, 2019, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that on November 7, 2017, she received an influenza vaccine and subsequently suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). Ms. Fisher stated she had no prior history of left shoulder issues and experienced residual effects for over six months. The respondent denied that Ms. Fisher sustained a SIRVA Table injury, that the flu vaccine caused her alleged injury, or that her condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, on February 23, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as the decision. Ms. Fisher was awarded a lump sum of $30,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. The decision was issued on March 29, 2021. Petitioner was represented by Maximillian J. Muller of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent was represented by Ronalda Elnetta Kosh of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Sharon Fisher alleged a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on November 7, 2017. Respondent denied a SIRVA Table injury and causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation, awarding $30,000.00. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the clinical progression of the condition beyond stating residual effects for over six months. The theory of causation is based on a Table injury, as indicated by the stipulation and the condition's description as SIRVA.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00600-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-03-29
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/23/2021) regarding 26 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00600-UNJ Document 31 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0600V
UNPUBLISHED
SHARON FISHER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 23, 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)
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On April 23, 2019, Sharon Fisher 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 left shoulder injury related to
vaccination (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on
November 7, 2017. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at February 23, 2021, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner
further alleges that she had no history of left shoulder injuries and that she suffered the
residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months. Petition at 1, 3; Stipulation
at ¶ 4. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the
flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that
her current condition is a sequela 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 1:19-vv-00600-UNJ Document 31 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 8
Nevertheless, on February 23, 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 $30,000.00 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-00600-UNJ Document 31 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00600-UNJ Document 31 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00600-UNJ Document 31 Filed 03/29/21 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00600-UNJ Document 31 Filed 03/29/21 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00600-UNJ Document 31 Filed 03/29/21 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:19-vv-00600-UNJ Document 31 Filed 03/29/21 Page 8 of 8