VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01953
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01953
Petitioner: Stephen Smith
Filed: 2021-10-04
Decided: 2023-07-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-09-15
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 57500

AI-assisted case summary:
Stephen Smith filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 4, 2021, alleging that he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), a condition listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, as a result of his influenza vaccination on September 15, 2020. Mr. Smith stated that the vaccine was administered in the United States, that he experienced residual effects for more than six months, and that there had been no prior award or settlement. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on June 21, 2023, conceding that Mr. Smith was entitled to compensation. The respondent agreed that Mr. Smith met the criteria for SIRVA as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and its interpretive aids, satisfied the statutory severity requirement by suffering residual effects for more than six months post-vaccination, and had timely filed his case. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on June 21, 2023, finding Mr. Smith entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on July 25, 2023, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a decision awarding Mr. Smith a lump sum payment of $57,500.00, representing compensation for all damages. Petitioner was represented by David John Carney of Green & Schafle LLC, and Respondent was represented by Rachelle Bishop of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical examinations, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Stephen Smith alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination on September 15, 2020. The respondent conceded that Petitioner met the criteria for SIRVA as listed on the Vaccine Injury Table (42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10)) and satisfied the statutory severity requirement of suffering residual effects for more than six months post-vaccination. The respondent's concession, based on the record, led to a finding of entitlement. Petitioner was awarded a lump sum of $57,500.00. The public text does not name specific medical experts, detail the mechanism of injury beyond it being a Table injury, or describe the specific clinical presentation, diagnostic findings, or treatments. The attorneys involved were David John Carney for Petitioner and Rachelle Bishop for Respondent. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the ruling on entitlement on June 21, 2023, and the decision awarding damages on July 25, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01953-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/21/2023) regarding 23 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01953-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1953V
STEPHEN SMITH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 21, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 4, 2021, Stephen 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 he suffered a Table injury – Shoulder Injury Related
to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of his September 15, 2020 influneza
(“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered
within the United States, that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than
six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on his
behalf as a result of his injury. See Petition at ¶¶ 3, 12, 17. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this Ruling 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 Ruling 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-01953-UNJ Document 28 Filed 07/21/23 Page 2 of 2
On June 21, 2023, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. See Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report and Proffer at 1. Specifically, Respondent “submits that [P]etitioner has
satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids
to Interpretation for SIRVA.” Id. at 4 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10)).
Respondent further agrees that “the records show that [P]etitioner timely filed his case,
that he received the flu vaccine in the United States, and that he satisfies the statutory
severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of his SIRVA for
more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. at 4-5 (citing Section 11(c)(1)).
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01953-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/21/2023) regarding 24 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-01953-UNJ Document 31 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-1953V
STEPHEN SMITH, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 21, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Rachelle Bishop, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 4, 2021, Stephen 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 he suffered a Table injury – Shoulder Injury Related
to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of his September 15, 2020 influneza
(“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.
On June 21, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On June 21, 2023, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and
Proffer (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $57,500.00. Proffer at 5. In the
Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id.
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-01953-UNJ Document 31 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 2
Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in
the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum
payment of $57,500.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
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