VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00655 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00655 Petitioner: Ardena White Filed: 2017-05-18 Decided: 2019-11-22 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2014-06-30 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 50000 AI-assisted case summary: Ardena White filed a petition on May 18, 2017, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of a Tdap vaccination received on June 30, 2014. The respondent denied that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury or that the Tdap immunization caused her shoulder injury. Despite these denials, both parties agreed to settle the issues and stipulated that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Ardena White a lump sum of $50,000.00, representing compensation for all damages available under the program. The decision was filed on November 22, 2019. Petitioner was represented by Edward Kraus of the Law Offices of Chicago-Kent, and the respondent was represented by Camille Collett of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, or any medical experts consulted. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Ardena White alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on June 30, 2014. Respondent denied a SIRVA Table injury or causation. The parties stipulated to a settlement, and Special Master Katherine E. Oler adopted the stipulation, awarding Petitioner $50,000.00 as compensation for all damages. The decision was filed on November 22, 2019. The public text indicates a Table-based theory for SIRVA but does not detail the specific mechanism, expert testimony, or clinical evidence presented. Petitioner was represented by Edward Kraus, and Respondent by Camille Collett. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00655-0 Date issued/filed: 2020-01-10 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/22/19) regarding 50 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (aa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:17-vv-00655-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-655V (UNPUBLISHED) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ARDENA WHITE, * Special Master Katherine E. Oler * Petitioner, * Filed: November 22, 2019 * v. * * Decision on Stipulation; Entitlement; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Damages; Tdap; SIRVA; Shoulder Injury HUMAN SERVICES, * Related to Vaccine Administration; Lump * sum. * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Edward Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago-Kent, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. Camille Collett, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON STIPULATION1 On May 18, 2017, Ardena White (“Petitioner”) filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of the Tdap vaccination she received on June 30, 2014. Id. 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 (2012)). This means the ruling 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 Decision in its present form will be available. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa- 10-' 300aa-34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa. Case 1:17-vv-00655-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 7 Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury or that the Tdap immunization caused Petitioner’s shoulder injury or any other injury. Stip. ¶ 6, dated November 22, 2019, ECF No. 49. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed on November 22, 2019 that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. Stip. ¶ 7. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein. The stipulation awards: 1. A lump sum of $50,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Stip. ¶ 8. This award represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above. 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/ Katherine E. Oler Katherine E. Oler Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice of decision not to seek review. Case 1:17-vv-00655-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:17-vv-00655-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/10/20 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:17-vv-00655-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/10/20 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:17-vv-00655-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/10/20 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:17-vv-00655-UNJ Document 54 Filed 01/10/20 Page 7 of 7