VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01350
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01350
Petitioner: Danae Plank
Filed: 2019-09-04
Decided: 2022-07-29
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2016-09-02
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 20000

AI-assisted case summary:
Danae Plank filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on September 4, 2019. She alleged that a Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine administered on September 2, 2016, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), and that the residual effects of this injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent denied that the petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury, denied that the Tdap vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury, and denied that the vaccine caused any other injury or her current condition. Despite these denials, the parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation on June 27, 2022. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the court. Danae Plank was awarded a lump sum of $20,000.00, payable to her, as compensation for all items of damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. The case proceeded as a Table claim, and the parties stipulated to damages. Petitioner's counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent's counsel was Christine Mary Becer. The decision was issued on July 29, 2022.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Danae Plank alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on September 2, 2016, with residual effects lasting over six months. Respondent denied a SIRVA Table injury, causation by the vaccine, and any other vaccine-related injury. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which was adopted by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The case proceeded as a Table claim. Petitioner was awarded $20,000.00 as compensation for all damages under Section 15(a). Petitioner's counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent's counsel was Christine Mary Becer. The decision was issued on July 29, 2022.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01350-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-07-29
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/27/2022) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01350-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1350V
UNPUBLISHED
DANAE PLANK, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 27, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Stipulation on Damages; Tetanus
HUMAN SERVICES, Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On September 4, 2019, Danae Plank 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 September 2, 2016. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at June 27,
2022, ¶¶ 2-4. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of her
injury for more than six months. Petition at 8; Stipulation at ¶ 4. Respondent denies “that
petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury, denies that petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury
was caused-in-fact by the Tdap vaccine, and denies that the Tdap vaccine caused
petitioner any other injury or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required 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). 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 (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01350-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/29/22 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on June 27, 2022, 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 the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $20,000.00, 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 Section 15(a). Id.
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.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01350-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/29/22 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01350-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/29/22 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01350-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/29/22 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01350-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/29/22 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01350-UNJ Document 42 Filed 07/29/22 Page 7 of 7