        In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-85V
                                      Filed: June 3, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
SCOTT CURTIS,                             *
                                          *
                     Petitioner,          *      Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
v.                                        *      Influenza;
                                          *      Shoulder Injury (“SIRVA”);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                       *      Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                       *
                                          *
                     Respondent.          *
                                          *
****************************
Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

      On January 15, 2016, petitioner 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 right shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused in fact by an influenza vaccination
administered on November 5, 2014. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On June 2, 2016, respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on
Compensation Award (“Proffer”) indicating petitioner should be awarded $91,217.75.
Proffer at 4. In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the
proffered award.


1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2National 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).
        On June 3, 2016, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. Based on the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that
petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

       Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, the undersigned awards petitioner
a lump sum payment of $91,217.75 in the form of a check payable to petitioner,
Scott Curtis. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be
available under § 300aa-15(a).

       The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                          s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          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
