          In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 18-0650V
                                       Filed: April 25, 2019
                                          UNPUBLISHED


    MARY STEWART,

                          Petitioner,
    v.                                                       Special Processing Unit (SPU);
                                                             Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                  Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                          Injury Related to Vaccine
                                                             Administration (SIRVA)
                         Respondent.


Glen Howard Stertevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On May 8, 2018, 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 she suffered “debilitating pain and weakness, restricted
range of motion, and adhesive capsulitis of her left shoulder and arm, which were
caused-in-fact by the [influenza] vaccination” she received on September 27, 2016.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.

       On April 25, 2019, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation for her shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). On
April 25, 2019, respondent filed a combined Rule 4 report and proffer on award of



1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website.
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, the
undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such
material from public access. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the
action in this case, undersigned is 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).

2   National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
compensation (“Rule 4 Report and Proffer”)3 indicating petitioner should be awarded
$112,654.00, representing compensation in the amount of $110,000.00 for pain and
suffering and $2,654.00 for past unreimbursable expenses. Rule 4 Report and Proffer
at 4. In the Proffer, respondent represented that petitioner agrees with the proffered
award. Id. 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 $112,654.00, representing compensation in the amount of
$110,000.00 for pain and suffering and $2,654.00 for actual unreimbursable
expenses in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Mary Stewart. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a).

       The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                          s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Chief Special Master




3The combined Rule 4 report and proffer contains information regarding petitioner’s personal medical
history which is not generally included in a proffer, when separately filed. Thus, the undersigned will not
attach the proffer to the decision in this case.

4 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
