VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00240
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00240
Petitioner: Debra Rhoades
Filed: 2021-01-07
Decided: 2024-01-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2019-10-11
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 45000

AI-assisted case summary:
Debra Rhoades filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 7, 2021. She alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of her influenza vaccination on October 11, 2019. Ms. Rhoades further alleged that she experienced residual effects of her condition for more than six months, that there had been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. The respondent denied that petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury, denied that the vaccine caused her alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, and denied that her current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Nevertheless, on January 19, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation. Special Master Daniel T. Horner found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, Ms. Rhoades was awarded a lump sum of $45,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant of the Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, and respondent was represented by Sarah Black Rifkin of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical examinations, diagnostic tests, treatments, or any expert witnesses.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Debra Rhoades alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an October 11, 2019, influenza vaccination. Respondent denied a SIRVA Table injury or that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which Special Master Daniel T. Horner adopted. The stipulation resulted in an award of $45,000.00. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the basis for the stipulation beyond the parties' agreement. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant and respondent by Sarah Black Rifkin. The decision was issued on January 19, 2024.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00240-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-02-13
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/19/2024) regarding 39 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (sh). Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00240-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/13/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-240VV
Filed: January 19, 2024
DEBRA RHOADES,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On January 7, 2021, 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”) as a result of her October 11, 2019 influenza (“flu”)
vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed January 19, 2024, at ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner
further alleges that she has experienced the residual effects of her condition for more
than six months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for
damages as a result of her condition, and that her vaccine was administered in the
United States. Petition at 1-2; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner
sustained a SIRVA Table injury; denies that the vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged
shoulder injury, or any other injury; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of
a vaccine-related injury. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1 Because this document 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 document 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00240-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/13/24 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on January 19, 2024, 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 the decision of the Court in 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 $45,000.00 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 § 15(a). Id.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the
clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
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 1:21-vv-00240-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/13/24 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00240-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/13/24 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00240-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/13/24 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00240-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/13/24 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00240-UNJ Document 43 Filed 02/13/24 Page 7 of 7