VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01213 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01213 Petitioner: Casimir Chmielewski Filed: 2023-01-09 Decided: 2023-02-10 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-10-22 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 65000 AI-assisted case summary: Casimir Chmielewski filed a petition on January 9, 2023, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 22, 2019. He claimed this was a Table injury and, in the alternative, that the vaccine caused his shoulder injury. The respondent denied that Mr. Chmielewski sustained a SIRVA Table injury or that the vaccine caused his alleged shoulder injury. Despite the denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on January 9, 2023, agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision awarding damages. Mr. Chmielewski was awarded a lump sum of $65,000.00, representing compensation for all items of damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical examinations, diagnostic tests, or treatments. Petitioner was represented by Richard H. Moeller of Moore, Heffernan, et al., and Respondent was represented by Joseph Adam Lewis of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Casimir Chmielewski alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after an influenza vaccine on October 22, 2019, claiming it was a Table injury and, alternatively, that the vaccine caused the injury. Respondent denied the allegations. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision. Petitioner was awarded $65,000.00. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the reasoning behind the stipulation beyond the agreement to compensate. Petitioner's counsel was Richard H. Moeller, and Respondent's counsel was Joseph Adam Lewis. The decision date was February 10, 2023. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01213-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-02-10 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/09/2023) regarding 52 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01213-UNJ Document 60 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1213V UNPUBLISHED CASIMIR CHMIELEWSKI, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: January 9, 2023 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) Richard H. Moeller, Moore, Heffernan, et al., Sioux City, IA, for Petitioner. Joseph Adam Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On December 16, 2020, Casimir Chmielewski 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, a defined Table injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 22, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 3, 23; Stipulation, filed at Jan. 9, 2023, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. In the alternative, Petitioner alleges that his shoulder injury was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 3, 24. Petitioner further alleges he received the vaccine within the United States, that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and that neither he nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his injury. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 31-32; 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 his 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-01213-UNJ Document 60 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on January 9, 2023, 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 $65,000.00 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-01213-UNJ Document 60 Filed 02/10/23 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01213-UNJ Document 60 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01213-UNJ Document 60 Filed 02/10/23 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01213-UNJ Document 60 Filed 02/10/23 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01213-UNJ Document 60 Filed 02/10/23 Page 7 of 7