VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01335
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01335
Petitioner: Debra Lambert
Filed: 2019-08-30
Decided: 2022-05-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-16
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 74911

AI-assisted case summary:
Debra Lambert filed a petition for compensation on August 30, 2019, alleging she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 16, 2018. The respondent conceded that the claim met the Table criteria for SIRVA, including no prior history of shoulder issues, onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination, and limitation of symptoms to the vaccinated shoulder. The respondent also agreed that the case was timely filed, the vaccination occurred in the United States, and the petitioner met the statutory severity requirement. Based on the respondent's concession, entitlement to compensation was granted. Subsequently, on May 10, 2022, a decision awarding damages was issued. The petitioner sought $80,000 for pain and suffering, while the respondent recommended $55,000. The parties agreed on $1,911.62 for out-of-pocket expenses. The court awarded a total of $74,911.62, comprising $73,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,911.62 for unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01335-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-04-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/10/2021) regarding 29 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01335-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1335V
UNPUBLISHED
DEBRA LAMBERT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 10, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On August 30, 2019, Debra Lambert 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 vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 16,
2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On March 9, 2021, 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.
Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for
1 Because this unpublished ruling 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 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, 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01335-UNJ Document 31 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 2
SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of the
affected shoulder prior to her vaccination that would explain the alleged symptoms and
examination findings occurring after vaccine injection; she more likely than not suffered
the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduced
range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and
there is no other condition or abnormality that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id.
at 6. Respondent further agrees that “this case was timely filed, that petitioner received
her vaccination in the United States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity
requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than
six months after vaccine administration.” Id. at 7.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01335-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-05-10
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/29/2022) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01335-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1335V
UNPUBLISHED
DEBRA LAMBERT, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 29, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 30, 2019, Debra Lambert 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 vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 16,
2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters. Because the parties could not informally resolve the issue of
damages, they were ordered to file briefs setting forth their respective arguments 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 Section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01335-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3
were notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing,
which ultimately took place on March 25, 2022.
Petitioner seeks an award of $80,000.00 in compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering. Respondent recommends an award of $55,000.00. The parties are in
agreement that Petitioner is entitled to $1,911.62 for out of pocket expenses.
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on damages
constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A),
at the conclusion of the March 25, 2022 hearing. An official recording of the proceeding
was taken by a court reporter, although a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I
hereby fully adopt and incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded. As discussed
during my oral ruling, in another recent decision I discussed at length the legal standard
to be considered in determining damages and prior SIRVA compensation within SPU. I
fully adopt and hereby incorporate my prior discussion in Sections II and III of Winkle v.
Sec’y Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-0485V, 2022 WL 221643, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Jan. 11, 2022) to the instant ruling and decision. Additionally, the official recording
of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well as specific
facts relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further informed my
decision awarding damages herein.
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A), I find that $73,000.00
represents a fair and appropriate amount of compensation for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering.3 I also find that Petitioner is entitled to $1,911.62 in actual
unreimbursable expenses.
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $74,911.62 in the form
of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages
that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Since this amount is being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction to
net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 96-
0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
4 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-01335-UNJ Document 52 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3