VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01021
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01021
Petitioner: Heidi Seiken
Filed: 2020-08-17
Decided: 2021-11-10
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-07-22
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 129271

AI-assisted case summary:
Heidi Seiken filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a Table injury, Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), as a result of her Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) vaccination on July 22, 2019. She further alleged that she suffered residual effects for more than six months and had no prior award or settlement. The Respondent conceded that Petitioner is entitled to compensation, agreeing that her claim met the Table criteria for SIRVA, including onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccination and reduced range of motion limited to the affected shoulder. The Respondent also confirmed the case was timely filed, the vaccine was received in the United States, and Petitioner met the statutory severity requirement. Based on the Respondent's concession and the evidence, entitlement to compensation was granted. Subsequently, a decision awarding damages was issued. The Respondent proffered an award of $129,271.41, comprising $125,000.00 for pain and suffering and $4,271.41 for past unreimbursed expenses, which Petitioner agreed to. The court awarded Heidi Seiken a lump sum payment of $129,271.41.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01021-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-11-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/08/2021) regarding 21 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01021-UNJ Document 26 Filed 11/09/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1021V
UNPUBLISHED
HEIDI SEIKEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 8, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On August 17, 2020, Heidi Seiken 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 Table injury – Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her July 22, 2019 Tetanus
Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges
that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there
has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her
injury. See Petition ¶¶ 10-11. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished Ruling 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 Ruling 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 1:20-vv-01021-UNJ Document 26 Filed 11/09/21 Page 2 of 2
On October 4, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes
that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report
and Proffer of Compensation at 1. Specifically, Respondent indicates that
[m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs,
Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), have reviewed the
facts of this case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table
criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had 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; she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-
eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduced range of
motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine
was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present
that would explain petitioner’s symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10).
Therefore, petitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation.
Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that
[w]ith respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, the records show
that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United
States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by
suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six
months after vaccine administration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i).
Petitioner also avers that she has neither “filed any civil action for [her]
vaccine-related injury,” nor “received compensation in the form of an award
or settlement for [her] vaccine-related injury.” Ex. 7 at 3. Thus, in light of the
information contained in petitioner’s medical records and affidavit,
respondent concedes that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under
the terms of the Vaccine Act.
Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01021-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-11-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/08/2021) regarding 22 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01021-UNJ Document 27 Filed 11/10/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1021V
UNPUBLISHED
HEIDI SEIKEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 8, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Tetanus Diphtheria acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 17, 2020, Heidi Seiken 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 Table injury – Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of her July 22, 2019 Tetanus
Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On October 8, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for SIRVA. On October 4, 2021, Respondent filed a proffer of
compensation indicating Petitioner should be awarded $129,271.41 (representing an
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 1:20-vv-01021-UNJ Document 27 Filed 11/10/21 Page 2 of 2
award of $125,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $4,271.41 for past unreimbursed
expenses). Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer of Compensation (“Proffer”) at 3-
4. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award.
Id. at 4. 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 Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum
payment of $129,271.41 (representing an award of $125,000.00 for pain and
suffering, and $4,271.41 for past unreimbursed expenses) in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would
be available under Section 15(a).
The clerk of the 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