VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00872
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00872
Petitioner: Jeffrey Balch
Filed: 2021-12-13
Decided: 2023-01-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-11-13
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 78906

AI-assisted case summary:
Jeffrey Balch, an adult, received an influenza vaccine on November 13, 2018. Within hours, he developed shoulder pain that worsened over the next two days, and he was diagnosed with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). He sought medical attention within about a month of vaccination. Mr. Balch submitted medical records and affidavits detailing his pain, which interfered with his ability to play guitar, swim, and bike, activities central to his well-being. He also noted that his SIRVA complicated his later management of a lung cancer diagnosis. Respondent conceded that Mr. Balch was entitled to compensation, agreeing that his injury met the criteria of the Vaccine Injury Table and that he experienced residual effects for more than six months. The parties could not agree on damages, leading to a hearing. The court awarded Mr. Balch $78,906.00, comprising $77,000.00 for pain and suffering and $1,906.00 for past unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00872-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-12-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/09/2021) regarding 28 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 32 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0872V
UNPUBLISHED
JEFFREY BALCH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 9, 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)
Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On July 17, 2020, Jeffrey Balch 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered
to him on November 13, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On November 8, 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 states that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in
the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation.” Id. at 4.
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. 99-6604, 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-00872-UNJ Document 32 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 2
Respondent further agrees that “the medical records demonstrate that [P]etitioner has
experienced the residual effects of his SIRVA for more than six months.” Id.
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_20-vv-00872-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-10
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/09/2022) regarding 46 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 9
Corrected
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0872V
UNPUBLISHED
JEFFREY BALCH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 9, 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)
Edward M. Kraus, Kraus Law Group LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 17, 2020, Jeffrey Balch 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on November 13, 2018.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office
of Special Masters. Although entitlement was conceded, the parties could not agree on
all damages components, so the matter was designated for SPU “Motions Day,” and
argument was heard on December 2, 2022.
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-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 9
For the reasons set forth below, and as represented during the hearing,3 I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the amount $78,906.00, representing
$77,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, plus $1,906.00 for past unreimbursed
expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
A little more than a year after the case was filed, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c)
Report in November 2021 conceding that Petitioner was entitled to compensation.
Respondent’s Report at 1. ECF No. 27. In view of Respondent’s position, a Ruling on
Entitlement was entered in Petitioner’s favor. ECF No. 28. Thereafter, the parties
attempted to informally resolve the issue of damages, but reached an impasse on an
appropriate award. ECF No. 34. I indicated to the parties that I would resolve their dispute
as to damages via a hearing, which was held on December 2, 2022.4
The parties argued for damages based on briefing completed prior to the motions
hearing. Thus, on February 17, 2022, Petitioner filed a damages brief requesting that I
award $95,000.00 for pain and suffering. Petitioner’s Damages Brief (“Brief”) at 1, ECF
No. 37. Petitioner stated that he experienced progressive pain, and that while he abided
by his physicians’ treatment recommendations, he did not achieve relief from his
symptoms in the end. Id. at 9. Further, Petitioner argued that his injury caused a significant
reduction in his quality of life. Id.
On March 11, 2022, Respondent filed a damages brief proposing a pain and
suffering award of $44,000.00. Respondent’s Damages Brief (“Opp.”) at 1, ECF No. 38.
He argues that Petitioner “sustained a relatively minor SIRVA injury and received little
treatment for SIRVA.” Id. at 5.
II. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include an award “[f]or
actual and projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related
injury, an award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may
recover “actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment awarding
such expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
3 See Minute Entry dated December 8, 2022. The transcript of this hearing, which was not yet filed as of
the date of this Decision, is hereby incorporated into this Damages Decision by reference.
4 See Amended Hearing Order, filed Nov. 14, 2022 (Non-PDF).
2

Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 9
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no precise formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain and
suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“Awards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation.”). Factors to be considered when determining an
award for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury;
and 3) duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (quoting McAllister v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Mar. 26, 1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid in the resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in each case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is
nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and
suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages
in this case.”). And, of course, a special master may rely on his or her own experience
adjudicating similar claims. Hodges v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress contemplated that special masters would use their
accumulated expertise in the field of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual
claims). Importantly, however, it must also be stressed that pain and suffering is not
determined based on a continuum. See Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 109
Fed. Cl. 579 (2013).
III. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
a. Severity and Duration of Pain and Suffering
Pain and suffering is the sole disputed component of damages herein, so only the
legal standards bearing on its calculation are relevant. In this case, awareness of the
injury is not contested. The record reflects that at all times Petitioner was a competent
adult with no impairments that would impact his awareness of his injury. Therefore, I
analyze principally the severity and duration of Petitioner’s injury.
3

Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 9
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole, including the
medical records and affidavits filed, written briefs, and argument at the December 2nd
Motions Day hearing. I have also considered prior awards for pain and suffering in both
SPU and non-SPU SIRVA cases, and rely upon my experience adjudicating these cases.
Based upon the above, I note and find the following:
• In his affidavit, signed on July 7, 2020, Petitioner avers that prior to vaccination, he
was a triathlete and regularly trained in running, swimming and bicycle riding. Ex.
5 at 1. He further states that his bicycle had been his primary mode of
transportation. Id.
• Petitioner further avers that he is a published songwriter and musician “with my
songwriting process rooted in playing my guitar.” Ex. 5 at 1.
• Petitioner received a flu vaccine in his left deltoid on November 13, 2018. Ex. 1 at
3-5.
• In his affidavit, Petitioner states that he experienced shoulder pain on the day of
vaccination. Ex. 5 at 2. He further states that “the pain continued to worsen, and
within two days I began to be concerned by the level of discomfort I was
experiencing.” Id.
• Petitioner also avers that despite attempts to manage his pain with anti-
inflammatory medication and ice, even small arm movements caused sharp
shooting pain. Ex. 5 at 2.
• On December 20, 2018 (37 days post-vaccination), Petitioner presented to Dr. Kim
Grahl, his primary care physician. Ex. 2 at 65. He reported that although he
experienced left arm soreness on both the day of and the day after vaccination,
“since Nov[ember] 18th, has had significant pain, has worsened since then.” Id. On
exam, Petitioner was found to have good range of motion as well as “good strength
in his hands, wrist.” Id.
• Petitioner presented to neurologist Afif Hentati, M.D. on January 25, 2019 (73 days
post-vaccination). Ex. 2 at 54. The resulting medical note indicates that Petitioner
“had been experiencing pain in anterior elbow area and anterior shoulder, and to
a lesser extent along the anterior arm.” Id. Petitioner reported that his pain was
“more intense when lifting heavier objects, but lifting 2 lb is sufficient to cause
significant pain.” Id. Although an increase in ibuprofen and rest were
recommended, Dr. Hentati indicated that he would “defer to [Petitioner] or an
orthopedist for management.” Id. at 57.
4

Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 5 of 9
• On February 5, 2019 (12 weeks post-vaccination), Petitioner presented to
orthopedist Eric Chehab, M.D. Ex. 3 at 5-6. Petitioner reported that his left arm and
shoulder pain first occurred “about a few days after a flu vaccine” and described it
as “sharp and aching . . . [and] intermittent.” Id. at 5. Petitioner also reported that
the pain was progressive. Id. On exam, Petitioner exhibited normal strength, mild
impingement signs, and pain with abduction. Id. In addition to prescribing physical
therapy (“PT”), Dr. Chehab instructed Petitioner to ice his shoulder and to continue
using anti-inflammatory medication. Id. at 6.
• Petitioner presented to Dr. Grahl on February 8, 2019 (approximately 3 months
post-vaccination) for a routine general exam. Ex. 2 at 31. During the course of this
appointment, Petitioner complained that his shoulder continued to be a problem
and that “it impairs ability to play guitar, do other things involving left arm.” Id.
• Petitioner underwent an initial PT assessment on April 10, 2019. Ex. 2 at 18-24.
Noting that his injury was getting worse, Petitioner rated his pain as a “0” on the
10-point scale at its best, and as a “6” at its worst. Id. On exam, Petitioner exhibited
normal passive and active range of motion, positive impingement signs, and
tenderness to palpitation of the bicep and supraspinatus tendon. Id. at 19-20.
Petitioner was assessed with “minor but persistent L[eft] anterior shoulder pain.”
Id. at 21.
• At an April 16, 2019 PT appointment (approximately 5 months post-vaccination),
Petitioner reported that although he had no symptoms at rest, he continued to have
pain when using his left arm to lift or open doors. Ex. 2 at 14.
• The PT note documenting Petitioner’s April 24, 2019 session indicates that
Petitioner reported “little to no progress with pain, however improved correction of
scapular stabilization mechanics which have been helpful in pain reduction.” Ex. 2
at 10.
• Petitioner attended an additional session of PT on May 9, 2019 (approximately 6
months post-vaccination). Ex. 2 at 6-8. The note documenting this appointment
indicates that Petitioner rated his pain as ranging between a “one” and “two” on a
ten-point scale. Id. at 6. It was further noted that Petitioner “[c]ontinues to lack
[approximately] 50% strength deficit with scapular stabilization but is compliant
with HEP [home exercise program] to address strength deficits.” Id. Petitioner was
discharged “with comprehensive HEP secondary to plateau in progress.” Id. at 7.
• Petitioner presented to Dr. Grahl on September 6, 2019 (approximately 10 months
5

Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 6 of 9
post-vaccination). Ex. 4 at 48-56. While he reported having no shoulder pain at
rest, he was noted to have pain if the activity “involves turning a key in the door.”
Id. at 48. Although Dr. Grahl referred Petitioner to an orthopedist, there is no
indication that Petitioner followed up in this regard. Id. at 49.
• On February 17, 2020, almost a year-and-a-half after vaccination, Petitioner again
presented to Dr. Grahl for a routine general exam. Ex. 4 at 33. During this visit,
Petitioner reported an inability to use his left hand without “low level pain.” Id.
• In October of 2020, Petitioner was diagnosed with lung cancer. See Ex. 7 at 21;
Ex. 8 at 2. During an October 29, 2020 oncology appointment, he reported left
shoulder pain. Ex. 7 at 560. It was noted that this symptom was “not new for
[Petitioner] but seems to stem from past vaccination injury.” Id. Petitioner began
chemotherapy/radiation therapy on November 9, 2020. Ex. 7 at 21.
• During the Fall of 2020 and Spring of 2021, Petitioner received treatment for issues
unrelated to his shoulder. These appointments largely involved Petitioner’s lung
cancer diagnosis. See, e.g., Ex.7.
• In his supplemental affidavit, signed on December 20, 2021, Petitioner states that
“[s]ince being diagnosed with cancer, the pain and limitations in my left shoulder
have sometimes been overshadowed by more dire medical concerns but are
always present. SIRVA complicates all aspects of managing cancer, making it
more difficult to receive and manage treatments, harder to stay fit, and harder to
maintain a positive outlook.” Ex. 8 at 2.
• Petitioner presented to Dr. Grahl on May 26, 2021 (almost two-and-a-half years
post vaccination) for a routine physical examination. Ex. 7-17. The medical note
documenting this appointment indicates that he was still receiving treatment for
lung cancer. Id. at 7. It was further noted that although Petitioner participated in
“some” biking and swimming, he experienced limited range of motion of his left
shoulder when getting into and out of the pool. Id. at 7-8.
The case record overall establishes that Petitioner experienced a moderate
shoulder injury serious enough for him to promptly seek medical care, but that later only
required conservative treatment. Petitioner never underwent an MRI, received no
cortisone injections, and never required surgery. Moreover, Petitioner only attended four
sessions of physical therapy, and only ever treated his shoulder symptoms with over-the-
counter medication.
Although it is true that Petitioner reported “significant pain” that was sharp, aching
6

Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 7 of 9
and intermittent at medical appointments in late 2018 to early 2019, by his final physical
therapy session on May 9, 2019 (almost six months post-vaccination), he reported that
his current pain ranged between a “one” and a “two” on a ten-point pain scale. And while
Petitioner continued to report shoulder pain during subsequent physical exams in
September 2019 and February 2020, this symptom only occurred with movement and
was characterized as “low level.”
However, another factor relevant to pain and suffering is the effect that a
petitioner’s shoulder injury has had on his or her personal life. In this case, Petitioner has
credibly explained how his injury impacted his active lifestyle. Most notably, Petitioner’s
condition interfered with his ability to play guitar, swim, and bike - activities which
Petitioner has stated are central to his sense of well-being. In his affidavit, Petitioner
testified that the inability to participate in these activities “complicate[d] all aspects of
managing [my] cancer, making it more difficult to receive and manage treatments, harder
to stay fit, and harder to maintain a positive outlook.” Ex. 8 at 2. I give some weight to
these contentions, while comparing them to the overall medical record (which
corroborated a SIRVA requiring limited treatment).
Despite the impact that Petitioner’s injury had on his daily routine and
psychological resilience, I find that the $95,000.00 sum requested by Petitioner is a bit
high. Nevertheless, because Respondent failed to offer comparables in support of his
proposal for an award of $44,000.00 in his briefing, I use the amount sought by Petitioner
as the starting point in my calculation of an appropriate award.
Petitioner argues that this case is comparable to several cases, including Cooper,
Derosiers, and Acetta,5 which resulted in awards ranging from $95,000.00 to $110,000.00
for past pain and suffering. However, I consider these cases to involve more concrete
aggravating factors (such as a limitation of treatment options due to pregnancy), or
greater severity and/or duration than in this case. But Petitioner also offers T.E. and
Decoretz as comparables, which resulted in awards of $70,000 and $75,000. T.E. v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0633V, 2021 WL 2935751 (Fed. Cl. May 7,
2021); Decoretz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0391V, 2021 WL 2346468
(Fed. Cl. Spec. May 7, 2021).
While an award close to these amounts is justified in this case, I find that
Petitioner’s course of treatment is most similar to the experience of the petitioner in Welch
(cited by Respondent at the hearing), where an award of $55,000 was granted. Welch v.
5 Cooper v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-138V, 2018 WL 6288181 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov.
7, 2018)(awarding $110,000 for pain and suffering); Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-
0224V, 2017 WL 5507804 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 19, 2017)(awarding $85,000 for pain and suffering);
Acetta v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1731V, 2021 WL 1718202 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. March
31, 2021)(awarding $95,000 for pain and suffering).
7

Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 8 of 9
Sec’y of Health and Human Services, No. 18-0660V, 2021 WL 4612654 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Sept. 21, 2021). The Welch petitioner experienced a relatively mild SIRVA which
did not necessitate surgery or lengthy overall treatment. Moreover, she did not receive
any cortisone injections, participated in only six sessions of physical therapy, and used
over-the-counter medication for pain relief. However, although that petitioner waited 110
days before seeking care for her shoulder, here Mr. Balch sought treatment a little over a
month after vaccination – thus indicating that he experienced a greater level of initial pain.
This difference, paired with the significant impact that Petitioner’s injury had on his daily
life and well-being, militates in favor of a higher award.
Accordingly, balancing the severity and overall course of Petitioner’s moderate
SIRVA injury with the personal hardships that he experienced as a result, and considering
the arguments presented by both parties at the hearing, a review of the relevant caselaw
and the written record, I find that $77,000.00 in total compensation for actual pain and
suffering is reasonable in this case.
b. Award for Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Petitioner also requests $1,906.00 in past unreimbursable expenses. Brief at 1.
Respondent does not dispute this sum. Opp. at 1.6 Therefore, Petitioner is awarded this
amount without adjustment.
Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and arguments of the parties, I award Petitioner
a lump sum payment of $78,906.00, (representing $77,000.00 for Petitioner’s actual
pain and suffering, and $1,906.00 for unreimbursable medical expenses) in the form of
a check payable to Petitioner, Jeffrey Balch. This amount represents compensation
for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.7
6 In his brief, Petitioner erroneously indicated that his out-of-pocket medical expenses totaled $1,096.00.
However, in an informal communication, Petitioner stated that the correct figure is $1,906.00. See
Informal Communication (Remark), entered on December 12, 2022. Respondent agrees that the higher
sum is correct. Id.
7 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.
8

Case 1:20-vv-00872-UNJ Document 50 Filed 01/10/23 Page 9 of 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9