VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01159 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01159 Petitioner: Krystal Garcia Filed: 2020-10-19 Decided: 2022-12-07 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-09-13 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 62250 AI-assisted case summary: Krystal Garcia filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 19, 2020. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on September 13, 2017. Ms. Garcia stated that the vaccine was administered in the United States, that she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there had been no prior award or settlement. The respondent denied that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury, denied that the vaccine caused Petitioner's alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, and denied that her current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, on September 29, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision awarding damages. Ms. Garcia was awarded a lump sum of $62,250.00, payable to Petitioner, representing compensation for all items of damages. Petitioner's counsel was Leigh Finfer of Muller Brazil, LLP. Respondent's counsel was Camille Michelle Collett of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Krystal Garcia alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on September 13, 2017. Respondent denied a SIRVA Table injury, causation, and sequela. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision. Petitioner was awarded $62,250.00 as a lump sum. The theory of causation was based on the "Table" for SIRVA, as indicated by the stipulation, despite respondent's denials. No specific medical experts or detailed clinical information regarding the mechanism of injury were described in the public decision. Petitioner was represented by Leigh Finfer, and Respondent by Camille Michelle Collett. The decision was issued on December 7, 2022. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01159-0 Date issued/filed: 2022-12-07 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/19/2022) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01159-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/07/22 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1159V UNPUBLISHED KRYSTAL GARCIA, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: October 19, 2022 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Influenza HUMAN SERVICES, (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration Respondent. (SIRVA) Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On September 8, 2020, Krystal Garcia 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered on September 13, 2017. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed on September 29, 2022 at 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine in the United States, that she experienced the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her alleged condition.” Petition at 1, 3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that [P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 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-01159-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/07/22 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on September 29, 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 $62,250.00 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-01159-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/07/22 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01159-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/07/22 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01159-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/07/22 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01159-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/07/22 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01159-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/07/22 Page 7 of 7