VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00652 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00652 Petitioner: Patricia Gould Filed: 2021-01-12 Decided: 2023-06-14 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2019-04-04 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 33000 AI-assisted case summary: Patricia Gould filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 12, 2021. She alleged that she received a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on April 4, 2019, and subsequently suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) that lasted for more than six months. The respondent denied that the petitioner sustained a Table injury for SIRVA, 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. Despite these denials, on May 12, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as the decision. Ms. Gould was awarded a lump sum of $33,000.00, payable to her, as compensation for all items of damages. The decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical examinations, diagnostic tests, or treatments. Petitioner was represented by Leigh Finfer of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent was represented by Meghan Murphy of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Patricia Gould alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on April 4, 2019, with injury lasting over six months. Respondent denied a Table injury, causation, or sequela. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found reasonable and adopted. The decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the basis for the stipulation, other than noting it was a "Table" injury. The award was a lump sum of $33,000.00. Petitioner counsel was Leigh Finfer; respondent counsel was Meghan Murphy. Decision date was June 14, 2023. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00652-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-06-14 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/12/2023) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-00652-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0652V UNPUBLISHED PATRICIA GOULD, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 12, 2023 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) Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On January 12, 2021, Patricia Gould 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”) from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine she received on April 4, 2019. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at May 12, 2023, ¶¶ 1-4. Petitioner further alleges that her injury lasted for more than six months. Petition at 1, 3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies “that petitioner sustained a Table injury for SIRVA, 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. Nevertheless, on May 12, 2023, 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. 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 1:21-vv-00652-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 7 Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $33,000.00, 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 1:21-vv-00652-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/14/23 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-00652-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/14/23 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-00652-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/14/23 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-00652-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/14/23 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:21-vv-00652-UNJ Document 42 Filed 06/14/23 Page 7 of 7