VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00422
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00422
Petitioner: Katelyn Roach
Filed: 2015-07-30
Decided: 2015-09-29
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2014-10-14
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 106250

AI-assisted case summary:
Katelyn Roach filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 30, 2015, alleging that a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination on October 14, 2014, caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded entitlement to compensation in a Rule 4(c) Report filed on July 30, 2015, agreeing that the alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA caused by the Tdap vaccination and that petitioner met all legal prerequisites. Based on this concession and the evidence, the Chief Special Master issued a ruling on entitlement on September 2, 2015, finding Katelyn Roach entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on September 4, 2015, a decision awarding damages was issued based on a proffer. The parties stipulated to an award of $95,000.00 for pain and suffering and lost wages. Additionally, on September 29, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs, agreeing to an award of $11,250.00. The total compensation awarded to Katelyn Roach was $106,250.00.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00422-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-09-02
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/30/2015) regarding 14 Ruling on Entitlement (Signed by Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00422-UNJ Document 25 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0422V
Filed: July 30, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KATELYN ROACH, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
* Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular
v. * Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
* (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner.
Debra Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
1
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On April 27, 2015, Katelyn Roach filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,2 [the
“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleges that as a result of a tetanus,
diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on October 14, 2014, petitioner
suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters.
On July 30, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report [“Res. Report”], in which
she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Resp. Report at 4.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be
posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501
note (2006)). 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).

Case 1:15-vv-00422-UNJ Document 25 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2
Specifically, respondent “believes that the alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA that
was caused by the administration of petitioner’s Tdap vaccination.” Id. Additionally,
based on the evidence of record, petitioner satisfied all legal prerequisites and other
requirements for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00422-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-09-04
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/14/2015) regarding 17 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00422-UNJ Document 26 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0422V
Filed: August 14, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KATELYN ROACH, *
*
*
Petitioner, * Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
* Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular
v. * Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
* (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner.
Debra Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES
1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On April 27, 2015, Katelyn Roach filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,2 [the
“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleged that as a result of a tetanus,
diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on October 14, 2014, petitioner
suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters.
On July 30, 2015, I issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to
compensation. On August 14, 2015, respondent filed a proffer on award of
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501
note (2006)). 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).

Case 1:15-vv-00422-UNJ Document 26 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 4
compensation (“Proffer”) detailing compensation for all elements of compensation to
which petitioner would be entitled under § 300aa-15(a). According to respondent’s
Proffer, petitioner agrees to the proposed award of compensation.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award petitioner a lump
sum payment of $95,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under §
300aa-15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:15-vv-00422-UNJ Document 26 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
*************************************
KATELYN ROACH, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 15-422V
* CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER
v. * DENISE K. VOWELL
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*************************************
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
I. Items of Compensation
For purposes of this proffer, the term “vaccine-related” is as described in Respondent’s
Rule 4(c) Report, filed on July 30, 2015, conceding entitlement in this case. Based upon the
evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $85,000.00 in pain and
suffering and $10,000.00 for lost wages. This represents all elements of competition to which
petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) for her vaccine-related injury.1
Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment described below, and request that the Chief Special Master’s
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:
1 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move
the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.

Case 1:15-vv-00422-UNJ Document 26 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 4
A lump sum of $95,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Katelyn
Roach. This amounts accounts for all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(a) to which petitioner would be entitled.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
RUPA BHATTACHARYYA
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VINCENT J. MATANOSKI
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
MICHAEL P. MILMOE
Senior Trial Counsel
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ DEBRA A. FILTEAU BEGLEY
DEBRA A. FILTEAU BEGLEY
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Phone: (202) 616-4181
Dated: August 14, 2015 Fax: (202) 353-2988
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00422-2
Date issued/filed: 2015-09-29
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/24/2015) regarding 20 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00422-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0422V
Filed: August 24, 2015
Unpublished
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KATELYN ROACH, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
* Attorney Fees and Costs; Stipulation
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner.
Debra Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
1
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On April 27, 2015, Katelyn Roach filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 [the
“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. The petition alleged that as a result of a tetanus,
diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on October 14, 2014, petitioner
suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). On August 14,
2015, I issued a decision awarding compensation to petitioner based on a proffer.
On August 21, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys’
Fees and Costs. According to the stipulation, the parties agree upon an award of
$11,250.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order #9,
petitioner’s counsel represents that petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44
U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioners have 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).

Case 1:15-vv-00422-UNJ Document 27 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 2
The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 42
U.S.C. § 300 aa-15(e). I find the proposed amount to be reasonable.
3
Accordingly, I award the total of $11,250.00 as a lump sum in the form of a
check jointly payable to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel Andrew Downing.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
3 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all
charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.
Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including
costs) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y, HHS, 924
F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
2