VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00591 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00591 Petitioner: Douglas S. Yaw Filed: 2021-03-17 Decided: 2023-04-17 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2018-11-12 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 51505 AI-assisted case summary: Douglas S. Yaw filed a petition on March 17, 2021, alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine he received on November 12, 2018. Mr. Yaw stated that he received the vaccine in the United States, suffered residual effects for more than six months, and had not filed a civil action or received compensation for the injury. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Yaw's injury or that he sustained a SIRVA Table injury. The parties later filed a joint stipulation agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the court's decision, awarding Mr. Yaw a lump sum of $51,505.00, payable to Petitioner, for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. This award represents compensation for his SIRVA injury. Petitioner counsel was Matthew F. Belanger of Faraci Lange LLP, and respondent counsel was Jamica Marie Littles of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Douglas S. Yaw alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on November 12, 2018. Respondent denied causation and a SIRVA Table injury. The parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to an award. The Special Master adopted the stipulation. The award was a lump sum of $51,505.00. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. The theory of causation is based on the "Table" for SIRVA. The decision date was April 17, 2023. Petitioner counsel was Matthew F. Belanger, and respondent counsel was Jamica Marie Littles. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00591-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-04-17 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/17/2023) regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-00591-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/17/23 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0591V UNPUBLISHED DOUGLAS S. YAW, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 17, 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) Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange LLP, Rochester, NY, for Petitioner. Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On January 12, 2021, Douglas S. Yaw 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”), a defined Table injury or, in the alternative, which was caused- in-fact by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on November 12, 2018. Petition at ¶¶ 1-2, 6; Stipulation, filed at Mar. 15, 2023, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that 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 individual has filed a civil action or received compensation for his alleged vaccine related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 6, 17-18; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused [P]etitioner to suffer a left shoulder injury or any other injury of his current condition and denies that [P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA Table 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 1:21-vv-00591-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on March 15, 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 $51,505.00 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 1:21-vv-00591-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/17/23 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-00591-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/17/23 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-00591-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/17/23 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-00591-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/17/23 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-00591-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/17/23 Page 7 of 7