Amorette M. Burgess v. HHS - Tdap, shoulder injury related to vaccine injury (“SIRVA”) (2023)

Filed 2021-04-15Decided 2023-07-27Vaccine Tdap
compensated$102,000

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

Amorette M. Burgess filed a petition on April 15, 2021, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

She alleged that on March 22, 2019, she received a Tdap vaccine in her left shoulder and subsequently suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the 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.

Despite these denials, on July 27, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to an award of compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H.

Corcoran reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as the decision. Pursuant to the stipulation, Ms.

Burgess was awarded a lump sum of $102,000.00, payable by check to the Petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical examinations, diagnostic tests, treatments, or expert witnesses.

Petitioner was represented by Howard Dale Mishkind of Mishkind Law Firm Co., L.P.A., and Respondent was represented by Steven Santayana of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation

Petitioner Amorette M. Burgess alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine injury (SIRVA) following a Tdap vaccination on March 22, 2019, with residual effects lasting over six months. Respondent denied the SIRVA Table injury and causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation on July 27, 2023. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it, awarding a lump sum of $102,000.00 for all damages. 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 Howard Dale Mishkind, and Respondent by Steven Santayana.

Source PDFs 3 total · 2 downloaded