In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1191V
UNPUBLISHED
EMILY BAILEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 23, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 14, 2019, Emily Bailey 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) as a result of an influenza vaccination on October 15, 2018.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On December 8, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On March 23, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $124,817.10,
representing $121,250.00 for pain and suffering and $3,567.10 for unreimbursable out-
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Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
of-pocket expenses. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner
agrees with the proffered award. Id. 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 attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $124,817.10, representing $121,250.00 for pain and suffering and
$3,567.10 for unreimbursable expenses 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 the 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
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1191V
UNPUBLISHED
EMILY BAILEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 23, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 14, 2019, Emily Bailey 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) as a result of an influenza vaccination on October 15, 2018.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On December 8, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner
entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On March 23, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer on
award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $124,817.10,
representing $121,250.00 for pain and suffering and $3,567.10 for unreimbursable out-
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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
of-pocket expenses. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner
agrees with the proffered award. Id. 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 attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $124,817.10, representing $121,250.00 for pain and suffering and
$3,567.10 for unreimbursable expenses 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 the 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