United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

Anderson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided March 28, 2025 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-1098V

MICHELLE ANDERSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 25, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 On July 17, 2023, Michelle Anderson 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”) caused by a tetanus diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine administered on February 6, 2022. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at February 20, 2025, ¶¶ 1, 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that she has not received any prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition. Petition at 1, 6; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. Respondent denies that Petitioner suffered a SIRVA Table Injury, or that the Td vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged SIRVA, or any other injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018).

Nevertheless, on February 20, 2025, 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 Petitioner a lump sum payment of $10,000.00, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).

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 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.