VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01059
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01059
Petitioner: Kayla Smith
Filed: 2021-03-12
Decided: 2023-07-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-01-08
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 27500

AI-assisted case summary:
Kayla Smith filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 12, 2021. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving the influenza vaccine on January 8, 2020. Petitioner stated she received the vaccine within the United States, suffered residual effects for more than six months, and had not filed a civil action or received other compensation. Respondent denied that Petitioner met the six-month severity requirement and denied that the flu vaccine caused her injury. Nevertheless, on June 26, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and awarded Kayla Smith a lump sum of $27,500.00 as compensation for all items of damages.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kayla Smith alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving the influenza vaccine on January 8, 2020. Respondent denied that Petitioner satisfied the six-month severity requirement and denied that the flu vaccine caused her alleged injury. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as his decision. A lump sum of $27,500.00 was awarded to Petitioner. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or detailed clinical facts supporting the SIRVA diagnosis or the six-month severity requirement. The theory of causation is based on the "Table" of vaccine injuries, as SIRVA is a condition listed in the Vaccine Injury Table. Petitioner was represented by Richard Gage, P.C., and Respondent was represented by the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued on July 27, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01059-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-27
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/26/2023) regarding 34 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01059-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/27/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1059V
KAYLA SMITH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 26, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Richard Gage, Richard Gage, P.C. (WY), Cheyenne, WY, for Petitioner.
Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On March 12, 2021, Kayla Smith 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”), a defined Table injury, after receiving the influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on January 8, 2020. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 7; Stipulation, filed June 26, 2023, ¶¶ 1-2,
4. Petitioner further alleges she received the vaccine within the United States, that she
suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months post-vaccination, and
that neither she nor any other individual has filed a civil action or received compensation
for her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 8-9; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that
[P]etitioner satisfied the six-month severity requirement and further denies that the flu
vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s alleged right shoulder injury, any other injury, or her current
condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
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 1:21-vv-01059-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/27/23 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on June 26, 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 $27,500.00 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-01059-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/27/23 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01059-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/27/23 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01059-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/27/23 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01059-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/27/23 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-01059-UNJ Document 37 Filed 07/27/23 Page 7 of 7