Tamatha Kelly v. HHS - Influenza, right shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) (2021)

Filed 2020-01-24Decided 2021-08-23Vaccine Influenza
compensated$57,500

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

Tamatha Kelly filed a petition for vaccine compensation on January 24, 2020, alleging that she suffered right shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on November 3, 2017. Ms.

Kelly alleged that the vaccine was administered in the United States, that she experienced residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that there had been no prior award or settlement for her condition. The respondent denied that Ms.

Kelly sustained a Table SIRVA within the Table timeframe and denied that the flu vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury and residual effects. Despite these positions, the parties filed a joint stipulation on July 20, 2021, agreeing to settle the case.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision.

The decision awarded Tamatha Kelly $57,500.00 in compensation, payable as a lump sum check, for all damages available under Section 15(a). This award represents a compromise of the parties' respective positions on liability and damages.

Petitioner was represented by Paul R. Brazil of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent was represented by Voris Edward Johnson of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

Theory of causation

Tamatha Kelly filed a petition alleging SIRVA following an influenza vaccine received on November 3, 2017. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused the alleged shoulder injury or that it was a Table SIRVA within the Table timeframe. The parties reached a joint stipulation to settle the case. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation, awarding Tamatha Kelly $57,500.00 as a lump sum check for all damages under Section 15(a). This award represents a compromise of the parties' positions on liability and damages. Petitioner was represented by Paul R. Brazil and respondent by Voris Edward Johnson. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or detailed clinical findings.

Source PDFs 2 total · 1 downloaded