VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01886 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01886 Petitioner: Julia White Filed: 2019-12-12 Decided: 2024-10-08 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2017-07-12 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 107843 AI-assisted case summary: Julia White filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine administered on July 12, 2017. The case proceeded as a Table claim, and the court found that Ms. White met the criteria for a SIRVA. She had no prior history of left shoulder pain, and her pain began within nine days of the vaccination, which the court found to be within the 48-hour window for SIRVA claims. While she reported some pain in her arm and neck, the court determined that her primary complaints and treatment efforts were focused on her shoulder, and other potential causes for her symptoms were ruled out. The court also found that her injury persisted for more than six months, satisfying another requirement for compensation. Respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing that her pain was not limited to her shoulder, but later agreed to a settlement. On October 8, 2024, a decision awarding damages was issued, granting Ms. White a total of $107,843.28 in compensation. This amount included $100,000.00 for pain and suffering, $645.00 for past unreimbursable expenses, $6,130.51 for lost wages, and $1,067.77 to satisfy a South Carolina Medicaid lien. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01886-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-07-13 Pages: 9 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/13/2023) regarding 50 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 9 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1886V UNPUBLISHED JULIA WHITE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 13, 2023 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Entitlement to Compensation; Ruling HUMAN SERVICES, on the Record; Findings of Fact; Tetanus Diphtheria Acellular Respondent. Pertussis (“Tdap); Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On December 12, 2019, Julia White (“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”) caused by a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered on July 12, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. For the reasons described below, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. 1 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-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 9 I. Relevant Procedural History After the claim’s initiation, Respondent indicated that he was interested in settlement discussions on March 25, 2021. ECF No. 25. While the parties continued to discuss settlement, Petitioner was ordered to file a motion for a ruling on the record due to the length of time this case was pending. ECF No. 43. Petitioner filed a motion for a ruling on the record on August 12, 2022, arguing she had met the Table’s SIRVA claim requirements. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Mot.”), ECF No. 46, at 7-10. Respondent opposed compensation on September 12, 2022. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Opp.”), ECF No. 47. Respondent maintains that because her pain was reported outside of her shoulder, a critical SIRVA element cannot be met. Id. at 11-12. Petitioner filed a reply on September 26, 2022. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Reply”), ECF No. 48. II. Petitioner’s Medical Records Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in her left shoulder on July 12, 2017. Ex. 2 at 18; Ex. 1 at 2. There is no history of prior left shoulder pain or issues. Nine days later, on July 21, 2017, Petitioner presented to Piedmont Medical Center for persistent pain at the Tdap injection site “since receiving tetanus shot.” Ex. 5 at 76. Petitioner reported “intense pain” with passive range of motion exacerbated by movement of her elbow, hand, and wrist. Id. at 77. An x-ray was unremarkable. Id. at 98. A hematoma was suspected, and Petitioner was prescribed an opiate, anti-inflammatories, and suggested to use warm compresses. Id. at 77, 94. A request for four days away from work was also completed. Approximately two weeks later (on July 27, 2017), Petitioner reported constant, throbbing pain in her shoulder that “radiate[d] to the neck” and was worsening. Ex. 2 at 14. An examination was “notable for pain with active and passive” range of motion. Id. at 16. On July 28, 2017, Petitioner was evaluated by Dr. Glen Feltham at the Specialty Orthopedics and Sports Medicine for shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 20. Petitioner reported pain in her left shoulder that began the same day she received the tetanus vaccine but denied radiating pain. Id. An examination showed tenderness globally around the left shoulder, reduced range of motion and pain and the extreme ranges, along with reduced strength. 2 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 3 of 9 Id. at 21. Petitioner was assessed with bursitis of the left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 20-21. A steroid injection was administered at that time as well. Id. at 22. Petitioner returned to Dr. Feltham on August 4, 2017. Ex. 3 at 18. Petitioner now reported that the steroid shot was successful, but that her pain had returned two days before. Id. Dr. Feltham noted that Petitioner’s pain was “localized to [the] subacromial space.” Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with left shoulder impingement syndrome and pain radiating to the left shoulder, with differential diagnoses including rotator cuff syndrome, painful arc syndrome, or subacromial bursitis. Id. Another corticosteroid injection was administered, and Petitioner was prescribed naproxen and an anti-inflammatory. Id. 18- 19. Petitioner next reported arm pain on August 10, 2017, stating that her left shoulder pain returned two or three days after the second steroid injection. Ex. 3 at 16. Prednisone was prescribed, which was reportedly ineffective. Id. at 14. On September 12, 2017, Petitioner reported pain “from her left trapezius all the [way] down her arm.” Ex. 5 at 175. An examination showed normal strength and range of motion, with no tenderness or swelling. Id. at 176. Gabapentin and another anti- inflammatory were prescribed. Id. at 177. Petitioner reported pain again on September 13, 2017, that radiated from her neck to her shoulder and left arm. Ex. 8 at 11. An x-ray was unremarkable. Id. at 11, 41. An examination showed “severely limited” range of motion due to pain. Id. at 11-12. Vicodin and an oral steroid were prescribed. Id. Petitioner underwent an MRI on September 20, 2017, and it revealed a contusion on the humeral head and a partial tear of the supraspinatus tendon. Ex. 5 at 45. Dr. Feltham also examined Petitioner and noted limited active range of motion. Petitioner’s diagnoses were updated to include acute arthritis and effusion of the joint of the shoulder region. Ex. 3 at 10-11. Another corticosteroid injection was administered on September 21, 2017, and a joint aspiration was performed. Ex. 5 at 150. The aspiration was “minimally successful,” however. Id. And a few days later, Petitioner reported to Dr. Feltham that the third steroid injection had proven ineffective. Ex. 3 at 8. An examination noted left shoulder pain with passive range of motion, weakness, and “mild tingling in tips of all five fingers.” Id. Dr. Feltham was “perplexed” as to the actual diagnosis and recommended a second opinion. Id. at 9. On October 9, 2017, Petitioner presented to Affinity Health Center to establish care and to get a referral to an orthopedic specialist. Ex. 4 at 7. Petitioner’s shoulder exhibited 3 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 4 of 9 decreased range of motion and discomfort “with attempt to raise left arm or extend from torso.” Id. at 8. Petitioner began chiropractic treatment on October 24, 2017 for left shoulder humorous joint pain and arm weakness. Ex. 6 at 1. Between October 25, 2017 and July 12, 2018 Petitioner attended 26 appointments for hand and arm pain, shoulder pain, cervical pain, and thoracic pain. Id. at 3-5, 13-14. There was a subsequent downturn in the tempo of Petitioner’s treatment visits specific to her shoulder. She reported shoulder pain at a routine gynecological visit on December 5, 2017. Ex. 4 at 5. But then six months passed before she returned to Affinity Health Center for continued left arm pain and mobility. Ex. 10 at 61. Petitioner was diagnosed with chronic shoulder and neck pain, and numbness in her fingers. Id. A muscle relaxant and non-steroid autoinflammatory was prescribed, and Petitioner was encouraged to engage in physical therapy. Id. at 61, 63. A few more months passed before Petitioner next reported pain on September 13, 2018, stating she was experiencing it in her left shoulder, neck, and arm. Ex. 10 at 57. Then, on December 26, 2018, Petitioner sought care at Affinity Health Center because the “[w]hole left side of [her] body” was hurting. Ex. 10 at 53. An examination indicated that Petitioner’s “[u]pper arms showed abnormalities” pain with extension of her left arm, and weakness. Id. at 53. Petitioner reported cold symptoms on January 30, 2019, and also indicated pain in her left shoulder. Ex. 10 at 50. An examination showed reduced range of motion and limited external rotation due to pain. Id. at 51. On February 8, 2019 Petitioner was evaluated for physical therapy. Ex. 12 at 8. She described her pain as between five and nine out of ten, and was located in the left shoulder, posterior neck, and scapula. Id. at 6. Petitioner next sought care for shoulder pain several months later, on September 17, 2019. Ex. 10 at 42. An examination continued to show reduced range of motion (Ex. 10 at 43), and she was prescribed gabapentin and naproxen. Id. at 44. In the following year, Petitioner was seen for shoulder pain in June 2020. Ex. 10 at 16. She reported reduced range of motion and that she “cannot raise arm above 90 degrees.” Ex. 10 at 16. However, a physical exam indicated she showed full range of motion. Id. 4 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 5 of 9 Petitioner was next seen for a follow-up on February 25, 2021 and May 11, 2021. She reported continued shoulder pain. Ex. 11 at 11; 14. On May 11, 2021, Petitioner was advised that she may need to be evaluated by a disability physician and have a neurology evaluation for her pain. Id. at 11. On August 5, 2021 Petitioner underwent a nerve conduction study that was “[b]orderline normal”. Ex. 11 at 33-34. Notably, there was no evidence of neuropathy or radiculopathy. Id. at 34. Petitioner was last seen for a follow- up regarding her continued shoulder pain on November 23, 2021. Id. at 8. III. Parties’ Arguments Petitioner asserts that she satisfies all legal prerequisites for compensation. Mot. at 7-9; Reply at 1-4. Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot meet the definition of a Table claim because the pain was not limited to her shoulder. Opp. at 11-12. IV. Fact Findings and Ruling on Entitlement Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act Section 11(c)(1). In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,3 a petitioner must establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received. Section 11(c)(1)(C). The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3, identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a). Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48 hours of the administration of an influenza vaccine. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following: (i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; 3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited exception; suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, died from her injury, or underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for her injury. See § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). 5 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 6 of 9 (ii) Pain occurs within the specified time frame; (iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and (iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy, brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy). 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis, conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation, and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record. Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03- 1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, the Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id. Medical records may be outweighed by testimony that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 6 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 7 of 9 A. Factual Findings Regarding a Table SIRVA After a review of the entire record, I find that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA. 1. Petitioner Had No Prior Left Shoulder Condition or Injury The first requirement for a Table SIRVA is a lack of problems associated with the affected shoulder prior to vaccination that would explain the symptoms experienced after vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner meets this criterion, and I find that she has demonstrated a lack of history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain her symptoms. 2. Onset of Petitioner’s Injury Occurred within Forty-Eight Hours of her Vaccination The medical records preponderantly establish, and Respondent does not dispute, onset of injury close-in-time to vaccination. Petitioner first sought treatment approximately nine days after her vaccination and reported “persistent pain at the injection site” since receiving the Tdap vaccine. Ex. 5 at 76. Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence that establishes the onset of Petitioner’s left shoulder pain more likely than not occurred within 48-hours of vaccination. 3. Petitioner’s Pain was Limited to her Left Shoulder Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot establish that her pain was limited to her shoulder because she also reported pain in her left arm, left elbow, left hand, along with numbness in her fingers. Opp. at 11-12. While Respondent’s argument has merit, it ultimately fails to rebut Petitioner’s otherwise-preponderant Table showing. The record unquestionably contains reports of non-shoulder pain complaints, but at the same time consistently reveals complaints of shoulder pain and loss of range of motion in Petitioner’s left shoulder. Ex. 3 at 20-22; Ex. 8 at 11-12. Petitioner’s complaints, and the diagnoses, are also focused on the shoulder. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 18 (August 4, 2017, record noting that Petitioner’s pain was “localized to [the] subacromial space” of her left shoulder). Further, other causes of arm or neck pain were ruled out by the August 5, 2021 nerve conduction study, including neuropathy and radiculopathy. Ex. 11 at 33- 34. 7 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 8 of 9 Pain reported in Petitioner’s left elbow, neck, and numbness may be unrelated to Petitioner’s SIRVA – but that kind of complaint or injury can be disregarded in calculating damages. The mere existence of such record complaints does not defeat a showing that Petitioner not only did experience shoulder-specific pain, but that most of her complaints and treatment efforts were aimed at that. Accordingly, preponderant evidence supports this Table element as well. 4. There is No Evidence of Another Condition or Abnormality The last criteria for a Table SIRVA state that there must be no other condition or abnormality which would explain a petitioner’s current symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iv). Respondent does not contest this aspect of Petitioner’s claim, and there is nothing in the records to suggest that any such condition or abnormality exists. B. Other Requirements for Entitlement In addition to establishing a Table injury, a petitioner must also provide preponderant evidence of the additional requirements of Section 11(c). Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied these requirements in this case, and the overall record contains preponderant evidence to fulfill these additional requirements. The record shows that Petitioner received a flu vaccine intramuscularly on July 12, 2017, in the United States. Ex. 1 at 2; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a covered vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) at 18(I) (requiring administration within the United States or its territories). There is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award for her injury. Ex. 7 at 2; Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Further, as discussed above, Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for a Table SIRVA. The last criteria which must be satisfied by Petitioner involves the duration of her SIRVA. For compensation to be awarded, the Vaccine Act requires that a petitioner suffer the residual effects of his or her left shoulder injury for more than six months or required surgical intervention. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month requirement). Here, Petitioner reported pain until at least November 23, 2021, more than six months after her Tdap vaccination. Based upon all of the above, Petitioner has established that she suffered a Table SIRVA. Additionally, she has satisfied all other requirements for compensation. I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Conclusion 8 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 53 Filed 07/13/23 Page 9 of 9 In view of the record, I find preponderant evidence that Petitioner satisfies the QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA, and that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report by July 6, 2023, indicating whether settlement discussions are likely to be productive. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 9 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01886-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-08 Pages: 6 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/05/2024) regarding 69 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 73 Filed 10/08/24 Page 1 of 6 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1886V JULIA WHITE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 5, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On December 12, 2019, Julia White 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”) following a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine administered on July 12, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 13, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On September 3, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $106,775.51 (comprised of $100,000.00 for pain and suffering, $645.00 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $6,130.51 for lost wages), and $1,067.77 to satisfy a State of South 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018). Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 73 Filed 10/08/24 Page 2 of 6 Carolina Medicaid lien. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award the following compensation: • A lump sum of $106,775.51 (comprised of $100,000.00 for pain and suffering, $645.00 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $6,130.51 for lost wages) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; • A lump sum of $1,067.77, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of South Carolina Medicaid lien payable jointly to Petitioner3 and to: Optum PO Box 182643 Columbus, OH 43218 Optum Event Number: 94453205 Proffer at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to Optum for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. 4 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-01886-UNJ Document 73 Filed 10/08/24 Page 3 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS JULIA WHITE, Petitioner, v. No. 19-1886V Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On August 12, 2022, petitioner, Julia White, filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (Motion) arguing that she has established entitlement to compensation for a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. ECF No. 46. Respondent filed his Response to petitioner’s Motion on September 12, 2022, recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 47. On June 13, 2023, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 50. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $100,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. 1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein. Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s June 13, 2023, entitlement decision. Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 73 Filed 10/08/24 Page 4 of 6 B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $645.00. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. C. Lost Wages Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past lost wages related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past lost wages in the amount of $6,130.51. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). Petitioner agrees. D. Medicaid Lien Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded funds to satisfy the State of South Carolina Medicaid lien in the amount of $1,067.77, which represents full satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the State of South Carolina may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid payments the State of South Carolina has made to or on behalf of petitioner from the date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a result of her alleged vaccine-related injury suffered on or about July 12, 2017, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The above amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through 2 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 73 Filed 10/08/24 Page 5 of 6 two lump sum payments as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: A. A lump sum payment of $106,775.51, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. B. A lump sum payment of $1,067.77, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of South Carolina Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and: Optum PO Box 182643 Columbus, OH 43218 Optum Event Number: 94453205 Petitioner agrees to endorse the check to Optum for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division TRACI R. PATTON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 2 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 unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering. 3 Case 1:19-vv-01886-UNJ Document 73 Filed 10/08/24 Page 6 of 6 /s/ Nina Y. Ren NINA Y. REN Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington D.C. 20044-0146 (202) 305-3781 Nina.Ren@usdoj.gov DATED: September 3, 2024 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01886-cl-extra-10734047 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-08 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267457 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1886V JULIA WHITE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 5, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 On December 12, 2019, Julia White 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”) following a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine administered on July 12, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 13, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On September 3, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $106,775.51 (comprised of $100,000.00 for pain and suffering, $645.00 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $6,130.51 for lost wages), and $1,067.77 to satisfy a State of South 1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018). Carolina Medicaid lien. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award the following compensation: • A lump sum of $106,775.51 (comprised of $100,000.00 for pain and suffering, $645.00 for past unreimbursable expenses, and $6,130.51 for lost wages) in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; • A lump sum of $1,067.77, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of South Carolina Medicaid lien payable jointly to Petitioner 3 and to: Optum PO Box 182643 Columbus, OH 43218 Optum Event Number: 94453205 Proffer at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 3 Petitioner agrees to endorse this payment to Optum for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. 4 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 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS JULIA WHITE, Petitioner, v. No. 19-1886V Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On August 12, 2022, petitioner, Julia White, filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (Motion) arguing that she has established entitlement to compensation for a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. ECF No. 46. Respondent filed his Response to petitioner’s Motion on September 12, 2022, recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied. ECF No. 47. On June 13, 2023, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 50. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $100,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. 1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein. Assuming the Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s June 13, 2023, entitlement decision. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $645.00. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. C. Lost Wages Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past lost wages related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past lost wages in the amount of $6,130.51. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). Petitioner agrees. D. Medicaid Lien Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded funds to satisfy the State of South Carolina Medicaid lien in the amount of $1,067.77, which represents full satisfaction of any right of subrogation, assignment, claim, lien, or cause of action the State of South Carolina may have against any individual as a result of any Medicaid payments the State of South Carolina has made to or on behalf of petitioner from the date of her eligibility for benefits through the date of judgment in this case as a result of her alleged vaccine-related injury suffered on or about July 12, 2017, under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The above amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees. II. Form of the Award Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case. Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through 2 two lump sum payments as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: A. A lump sum payment of $106,775.51, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. B. A lump sum payment of $1,067.77, representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of South Carolina Medicaid lien, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and: Optum PO Box 182643 Columbus, OH 43218 Optum Event Number: 94453205 Petitioner agrees to endorse the check to Optum for satisfaction of the Medicaid lien. Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division TRACI R. PATTON Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 2 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 unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering. 3 /s/ Nina Y. Ren NINA Y. REN Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington D.C. 20044-0146 (202) 305-3781 Nina.Ren@usdoj.gov DATED: September 3, 2024 4 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01886-cl-extra-11105269 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-22 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10638682 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1886V JULIA WHITE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 20, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS1 On December 12, 2019, Julia White 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”) following a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine administered on July 12, 2017. Petition at 1. On September 5, 2024, I issued a decision awarding damages to Petitioner based upon Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 69. 1Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $54,766.49 (representing $51,894.70 for fees and $2,871.79 in attorney’s costs). Petitioner’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees, filed Mar. 10, 2025, ECF No. 74. In accordance with General Order No. 9, counsel for Petitioner represents that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 2. Respondent reacted to the motion on March 11, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied that the statutory requirements for an award of attorney’s fees and costs are met in this case, but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Respondent’s Response to Motion at 2-3, 3 n.2, ECF No. 75. The next day, Petitioner filed a reply, criticizing Respondent’s hourly rate discussion and reiterating her previous fees request. ECF No. 76. The rates requested for work performed through 2025 are reasonable and consistent with our prior determinations, and will therefore be adopted. And tasks that can be completed by a paralegal or legal assistant have been billed at that lower rate, even when performed by an attorney. E.g., ECF No. 74-1 at 3 (12/26/19), 12 (3/18/22); Riggins v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 99-382V, 2009 WL 3319818, at *21 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 15, 2009). I also note this case required additional briefing regarding entitlement, specifically symptom location. See Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling on the Record (“Motion”), filed Aug. 12, 2022, ECF No. 46; Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response to Motion, filed Sept. 26, 2022, ECF No. 48. Petitioner’s counsel expended approximately 11.0 hours drafting the entitlement brief and 7.0 hours drafting the entitlement reply brief, for a combined total of 18.0 hours. ECF No. 74-1 at 14. I find this time to have been reasonably incurred. (And all time billed to the matter was also reasonably incurred.) Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs, ECF No. 74-2. And Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. ECF No. 75. I have reviewed the requested costs and find them to be reasonable. The Vaccine Act permits an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful claimants. Section 15(e). Accordingly, I hereby GRANT Petitioner’s Motion for attorney’s fees and costs. I award a total of $54,766.49 (representing $51,894.70 for fees and $2,871.79 in attorney’s costs) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review (see Appendix B to the Rules of the Court), the Clerk of 2 Court shall 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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 3