VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00854
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00854
Petitioner: Bernadette Moya
Filed: 2020-07-14
Decided: 2022-09-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-12
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 145000

AI-assisted case summary:
Bernadette Moya filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 14, 2020. She alleged that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine in her left arm on October 12, 2018. Petitioner stated that the injury persisted for more than six months and that the influenza vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table. The respondent denied that Petitioner sustained a Table SIRVA injury, denied that the flu vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, and denied that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. On September 6, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation for damages. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and awarded Bernadette Moya a lump sum of $145,000.00 as compensation for all items of damages. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Leigh Finfer of Muller Brazil, LLP represented the Petitioner, and Matthew Murphy of the U.S. Department of Justice represented the Respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Bernadette Moya received an influenza vaccine on October 12, 2018, and alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) that persisted for more than six months. The injury was alleged to be a Table SIRVA injury or, in the alternative, caused-in-fact by the vaccine. Respondent denied the allegations. The parties filed a joint stipulation for damages, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded Petitioner $145,000.00. The public decision does not specify the mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or detailed medical evidence. The theory of causation is based on a stipulation between the parties, with the Special Master adopting the terms of the stipulation as his decision. Petitioner was represented by Leigh Finfer of Muller Brazil, LLP, and Respondent was represented by Matthew Murphy of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00854-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-10-12
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/06/2022) regarding 42 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00854-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/12/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0854V
UNPUBLISHED
BERNADETTE MOYA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: September 6, 2022
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
HUMAN SERVICES, Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
(Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA).
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON STIPULATION1
On July 14, 2020, Bernadette Moya 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 received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which vaccine is contained
in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), in her left arm on October
12, 2018. Petitioner alleges that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) within the time period set forth in the Table following
administration of the flu vaccine, or in the alternative, that her alleged shoulder injury was
caused-in-fact by the vaccine. She further alleges that she experienced the residual
effects of this condition for more than six months. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.
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 1:20-vv-00854-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/12/22 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a Table SIRVA 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.
Nevertheless, on September 6, 2022, 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 $145,000.00 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 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 1:20-vv-00854-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/12/22 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00854-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/12/22 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00854-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/12/22 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00854-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/12/22 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00854-UNJ Document 46 Filed 10/12/22 Page 7 of 7