VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01950 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01950 Petitioner: Sherry F. Mitchell Filed: 2020-12-22 Decided: 2025-09-10 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2019-12-22 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 95000 AI-assisted case summary: On December 22, 2020, Sherry F. Mitchell filed a petition seeking compensation under the Vaccine Act after receiving an influenza vaccination on December 22, 2019. She alleged that the vaccination caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration and that the residual effects of the injury lasted for more than six months. The Secretary denied that Ms. Mitchell suffered a Table SIRVA, denied that the flu vaccine caused any other injury, and denied that any vaccine-related condition caused continuing sequelae. The public stipulation does not describe the precise onset, medical visits, imaging, injections, therapy, or other clinical treatment for the shoulder injury; it records the parties' legal agreement rather than a detailed medical narrative. On September 10, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation resolving the case. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Ms. Mitchell was awarded a lump sum of $95,000.00 as compensation for all damages available under section 15(a), payable by ACH deposit to her counsel's IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. She was represented by Thomas Verner Smith of the Law Office of T. Verner Smith in Jackson, Tennessee. Theory of causation field: Influenza vaccine, December 22, 2019, adult petitioner with exact age not stated in the public stipulation, alleged shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused a Table SIRVA or any other vaccine-related injury and denied six-month sequelae, but the parties stipulated to a lump-sum award of $95,000. The public stipulation does not provide onset timing, imaging, treatment course, or expert analysis. Chief Special Master Corcoran, September 10, 2025. Attorney Thomas Verner Smith, Law Office of T. Verner Smith, Jackson, Tennessee. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01950-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-10-20 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/10/2025) regarding 69 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-01950-UNJ Document 70 Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1950V SHERRY F. MITCHELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: September 10, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Thomas Verner Smith, Law Office of T. Verner Smith, Jackson, TN, for Petitioner. Austin Joel Egan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On December 22, 2020, Sherry F. Mitchell filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On December 22, 2019, Petitioner received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine, a vaccine contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). Petitioner alleges that she sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as defined in the Table; she further alleges that the flu vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury, and that she suffered the residual effects of her alleged injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the 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. 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018). Case 1:20-vv-01950-UNJ Document 70 Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on September 10, 2025, 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 $95,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 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-01950-UNJ Document 70 Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01950-UNJ Document 70 Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01950-UNJ Document 70 Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01950-UNJ Document 70 Filed 10/20/25 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-01950-UNJ Document 70 Filed 10/20/25 Page 7 of 7