VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00195
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00195
Petitioner: Susan Hargrafen
Filed: 2017-02-09
Decided: 2018-10-10
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2016-01-18
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 162917

AI-assisted case summary:
Susan Hargrafen filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 9, 2017. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of a Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine she received on January 18, 2016. Ms. Hargrafen further alleged that her injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused her alleged left SIRVA or any other injury, and denied that her current disabilities were sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Nevertheless, on July 9, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found the stipulation reasonable and awarded Susan Hargrafen a lump sum of $162,917.26, representing compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The decision was issued on October 10, 2018. Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey S. Pop of Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, and respondent was represented by Lisa Ann Watts of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Susan Hargrafen alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on January 18, 2016, with injury lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, medical experts, clinical details of the injury, onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, or treatments. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey awarded a lump sum of $162,917.26 on October 10, 2018, representing compensation for all damages available under the Vaccine Act. Petitioner counsel was Jeffrey S. Pop, and respondent counsel was Lisa Ann Watts.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00195-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-10-10
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/09/2018) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00195-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/10/18 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-0195V
Filed: July 9, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
SUSAN HARGRAFEN,
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
Stipulation on Damages; Tetanus
Petitioner,
Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap)
v.
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.
Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On February 9, 2017, Susan Hargrafen (“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 she suffered a shoulder
injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus diphtheria
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on January 18, 2016. Petition at 1-2;
Stipulation, filed July 9, 2018, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered her
vaccine related injury for more than six months. Petition at 3-4; Stipulation at ¶ 4.
“Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged left SIRVA, or
any other injury, and further denies that petitioner’s current disabilities are sequelae of a
vaccine-related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on July 9, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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). 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.
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 1:17-vv-00195-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/10/18 Page 2 of 7
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 $162,917.26, 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 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-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

Case 1:17-vv-00195-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/10/18 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00195-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/10/18 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00195-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/10/18 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00195-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/10/18 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00195-UNJ Document 49 Filed 10/10/18 Page 7 of 7