United States Court of Federal Claims, 2020

Siefert v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 27, 2020 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1797V UNPUBLISHED

WENDY SIEFERT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 23, 2020 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Tetanus HUMAN SERVICES, Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Dhairya Divyakant Jani, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On November 21, 2018, Wendy Siefert 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), resulting from adverse effects of a tetanus diptheria acelluar pertussis (Tdap) vaccine. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at September 23, 2020, ¶ 1.

Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, she suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six months, and there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition. Petition at 1, 3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused [P]etitioner to suffer a left shoulder injury, and denies that [P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA Table Injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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).

Nevertheless, on September 23, 2020, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $57,762.50 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 Section 15(a). Id. I approve 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/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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.