VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01743
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01743
Petitioner: Michelle Breslin
Filed: 2019-11-12
Decided: 2022-10-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: deltoid intramuscular lipoma
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 32500

AI-assisted case summary:
Michelle Breslin filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on November 12, 2019, alleging she suffered a deltoid intramuscular lipoma after receiving an influenza vaccine. She claimed residual effects lasting more than six months, no prior award or settlement for the condition, and that the vaccine was administered in the United States. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused the petitioner's lipoma or any other injury, and denied that her current condition was a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on August 23, 2022, agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Special Master Daniel T. Horner found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the Court's decision. Pursuant to the stipulation, Ms. Breslin was awarded a lump sum of $32,500.00, payable by check to the petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The decision was issued on October 3, 2022. Petitioner was represented by Bridget McCullough of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent was represented by Katherine Carr Esposito of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Michelle Breslin filed a petition alleging a deltoid intramuscular lipoma following an influenza vaccine. The respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which Special Master Daniel T. Horner adopted. The stipulation awarded $32,500.00 as a lump sum. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused the lipoma. The decision notes that the petitioner alleged residual effects lasting more than six months. The award was made on October 3, 2022, based on a stipulation filed August 23, 2022. Petitioner's counsel was Bridget McCullough, and respondent's counsel was Katherine Carr Esposito.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01743-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-10-03
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/23/2022) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (mly). Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01743-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1743V
Filed: August 23, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
MICHELLE BRESLIN,
Petitioner,
Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v.
Influenza (“Flu”) vaccine; Lipoma
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On November 12, 2019, petitioner 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 deltoid intramuscular lipoma.
Petition at 2; Stipulation, filed August 23, 2022, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that
she has experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, that
there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of
her condition, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. Petition at 4;
Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s
lipoma, or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequelae of a
vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on August 23, 2022, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will
be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. See 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 the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be
redacted 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-01743-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/22 Page 2 of 7
reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in 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 $32,500.00 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 § 15(a). Id.
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/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
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-01743-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/22 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01743-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/22 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01743-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/22 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01743-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/22 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01743-UNJ Document 42 Filed 10/03/22 Page 7 of 7