Ashley Baldwin v. HHS - Influenza, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (2023)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Ashley Baldwin filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on April 15, 2021, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 24, 2020. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on June 23, 2023, conceding that the petitioner was entitled to compensation and that her injury met the criteria for SIRVA on the Vaccine Injury Table.
Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on June 26, 2023, finding Ms.
Baldwin entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on August 11, 2023, the respondent filed a proffer on the award of compensation, which the petitioner agreed to.
On September 13, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Decision on Damages, awarding Ms. Baldwin a lump sum payment of $67,170.05.
This award comprised $65,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,170.05 for past unreimbursable expenses. The decision was finalized on September 13, 2023.
Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie of Howie Law, PC, and respondent was represented by Lauren Kells of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Ashley Baldwin alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine received on November 24, 2020. The respondent conceded that the injury met the criteria for SIRVA as listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The case proceeded to an award of compensation based on this concession. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement on June 26, 2023, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. A subsequent Decision on Damages on September 13, 2023, awarded a total of $67,170.05, consisting of $65,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,170.05 for past unreimbursable expenses. The specific medical mechanism, onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or expert testimony were not detailed in the provided public text, as the case was resolved via concession on Table criteria. Petitioner was represented by John Robert Howie, and respondent by Lauren Kells.