^[1] On May 26, 2020, Erin Carey 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 (“flu”) vaccine that was administered to her on October 24, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 23, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On September 23, 2021, Respondent filed a Rule 4 report/proffer on award of compensation (“Rule 4/Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $90,320.00 (comprised of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering and $320.00 for past unreimbursed expenses). Rule 4/Proffer at 1, 4. In the Rule 4/Proffer, Respondent *2 represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. at 4. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Rule 4/Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $90,320.00 (comprised of $90,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $320.00 for past unreimbursed 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

[1] Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).

[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