# Kadry v. Secretary of Health and Human Services > United States Court of Federal Claims · January 17, 2019 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4359793 ## Case - **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims - **Decided:** January 17, 2019 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Nora Beth Dorsey - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4359793 ## Opinion text In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-1330V Filed: December 13, 2018 UNPUBLISHED RICHARD KADRY, Petitioner, v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint Stipulation on Damages; Influenza SECRETARY OF HEALTH (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury AND HUMAN SERVICES, Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) Respondent. Isaiah Richard Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On September 26, 2017, Richard Kadry (“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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on or about November 20, 2015. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed December 13, 2018, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Petition at 4; Stipulation at ¶ 4. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged SIRVA or any other 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 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website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. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). injury and further denies that his current disabilities are a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, on December 13, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned awards the following compensation: A lump sum of $65,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id. The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4359793. Public record. Not legal advice.