VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00527
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00527
Petitioner: Heather L. Foster
Filed: 2018-02-28
Decided: 2018-04-02
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2015-10-17
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 51667

AI-assisted case summary:
Heather Foster filed a petition on February 28, 2018, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a Tetanus diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on October 17, 2015. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the matter through a stipulation filed on February 28, 2018. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision in awarding damages. The stipulation awarded Heather Foster a lump sum of $51,666.69, payable by check to Ms. Foster, representing compensation for all damages available under the Act. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details of the injury, diagnostic tests performed, or treatments received. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent was represented by Christine Mary Becer.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Heather Foster alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on October 17, 2015. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, filed February 28, 2018, and adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on April 2, 2018. The stipulation awarded Petitioner $51,666.69. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury, as the case was resolved by stipulation. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, and Respondent was represented by Christine Mary Becer.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00527-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-04-02
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 2/28/2018) Regarding 23 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00527-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-527V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HEATHER L. FOSTER, * Special Master Corcoran
*
*
Petitioner, * Filed: February 28, 2018
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Tetanus diphtheria-acellular-pertussis
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“Tdap”) Vaccine; SIRVA.
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 14, 2017, Heather Foster filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that she suffered
from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her October 17,
2015, Tetanus diphtheria-aceullular-pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine.
Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused Petitioner’s SIRVA injury. Nonetheless
both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This
means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information.
Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any
information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged
or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision in its present form will be
available. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).

Case 1:17-vv-00527-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 7
February 28, 2018) that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should be
entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation
(as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the
terms set forth therein.
The stipulation awards:
 A lump sum of $51,666.69, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, Ms. Heather
Foster.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a) of the Act.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:17-vv-00527-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/02/18 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00527-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/02/18 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00527-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/02/18 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00527-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/02/18 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00527-UNJ Document 27 Filed 04/02/18 Page 7 of 7