VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01228 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01228 Petitioner: Savannah Sharpe Filed: 2021-04-16 Decided: 2024-09-03 Vaccine: tetanus Vaccination date: 2019-07-16 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 55000 AI-assisted case summary: Savannah Sharpe filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following a tetanus vaccination on July 16, 2019. The petition was filed on April 16, 2021. Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report stating that he did not contest that Ms. Sharpe was entitled to compensation, agreeing that she suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Respondent noted that she had no prior shoulder issues, the pain began within 48 hours of the vaccination, the pain was limited to the shoulder of injection, and no other condition explained the pain. The Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement on July 3, 2024, finding Ms. Sharpe entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on July 31, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation, agreeing to an award of $55,000.00, which Ms. Sharpe also accepted. On September 3, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Decision Awarding Damages, awarding Ms. Sharpe a lump sum payment of $55,000.00 as compensation for all damages. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01228-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-06-03 Pages: 6 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 04/30/2024) regarding 32 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Scheduling Order, Order on Motion for Decision, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/03/24 Page 1 of 6 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1228V SAVANNAH SHARPE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: April 30, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Timothy William O’Hara, Marvin Firestone MD, JD & Associates, LLP, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT1 On April 16, 2021, Savannah Sharpe 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 vaccine she received on July 16, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 Because this Fact Ruling 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 Fact 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 (2018). Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/03/24 Page 2 of 6 For the reasons discussed below, I find that Petitioner has preponderantly established that the Tdap vaccine she received on July 16, 2019, was administered into her right arm. I. Relevant Procedural History On February 24, 2023, about 22 months after the case was initiated, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report arguing that Petitioner was not entitled to compensation because “[a]lthough Petitioner contends that she received the vaccination in her right shoulder, the vaccination record clearly reflects that the vaccine was administered in her left shoulder.” Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 26) at 6. Petitioner filed a Motion for Decision (“Mot.”) regarding the site of her vaccination on May 15, 2023. ECF No. 29. Respondent filed his response (“Resp.”) on July 7, 2023. ECF No. 30. Petitioner filed a reply (“Repl.”) on July 14, 2023. The issue of site of vaccination is now ripe for a fact ruling. II. Issue At issue is whether Petitioner received the vaccination alleged as causal in her right or left arm, as it relates to whether Petitioner can make the required showing that pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered as required by the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). III. Authority 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). 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- 2 Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/03/24 Page 3 of 6 1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25, 1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The United States Court of Federal Claims has outlined four possible explanations for inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013), aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Court has also said that 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 fact 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). The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records, testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational). IV. Finding of Fact Based on a review of the entire record, including the medical records and affidavits, the arguments in Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report, and the arguments in the parties’ respective pleadings, I find that Petitioner’s July 16, 2019 Tdap vaccine was likely 3 Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/03/24 Page 4 of 6 administered in her right arm, as she contends. The following points are particularly relevant to that finding: • Petitioner’s pre-vaccination medical records reveal no injuries, inflammation, or dysfunction in either of Petitioner’s shoulders. • Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine at the office of her primary care provider (“PCP”) on July 16, 2019. Ex. 2 at 63-64. The vaccine administration record indicates that the site of vaccination was “deltoid left.” Ex. 9 at 7 • On August 2, 2019, 17 days after her vaccination, Petitioner visited her chiropractor. Ex. 8 at 2. Petitioner reported that she “had to get a vaccination for DTaP about 2 weeks ago on 7/16. Since then right arm has been swollen and achy from injection sight [sic].” Id. (emphasis added). • Petitioner continued to complain of right shoulder pain during her subsequent chiropractic visits. On November 4, 2019, the chiropractor recorded that Petitioner “continues to complain of R shoulder pain rom her vaccination.” Ex. 8 at 2. On May 12, 2020, he noted that he saw swelling on Petitioner’s right upper arm “in the area of the shot.” Id. On September 14, 2020, Petitioner reported that her “right shoulder still hurts around area of injection.” Id. • Petitioner returned to her PCP for her right shoulder pain on January 25, 2021. Ex. 9 at 27-29. She reported that she had “started to notice right upper arm pain after receiving Tdap vaccination on 07/16/2019.” Id. at 28. Although Petitioner reported feeling a lump in her arm, the doctor found “no palpable mass on [her] exam.” Id. at 28-29. During the range of motion exam, Petitioner was “guarding against right shoulder flexion and abduction beyond 90 degrees due to discomfort in deltoid.” Id. at 29. An ultrasound of Petitioner’s right arm was ordered, which was normal. Id. at 22, 27. • Petitioner filed an affidavit in which she states that “the nurse placed the injection on the center of my right shoulder, above the arm.” Ex. 1 at ¶4. She “immediately felt excruciating pain at the injection site” and told the administrator, who advised that it would resolve “in a few days.” Id. at ¶6-7. She recalled that when she “got home . . . [she] could feel a lump … where the vaccine had been administered.” Id. at ¶8. 4 Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/03/24 Page 5 of 6 A review of the entirety of the record supports the conclusion that Petitioner more likely than not received the July 16, 2019 Tdap vaccine in her right arm. Only one record - the initial vaccine administration record - definitively states that Petitioner received the flu vaccination in her left arm. Ex. 9 at 7. All remaining records for periods thereafter are consistent in identifying the vaccinated arm as the right. Thus, Petitioner consistently attributed her right shoulder pain to her vaccination when seeking treatment. For example, at her first visit to her chiropractor on August 2, 2019, only 17 days after her vaccination, Petitioner reported that her right arm was swollen and achy from the injection. Ex. 8 at 2. She continued to report right shoulder pain, which she attributed to her vaccination, at subsequent visits to her chiropractor for more than a year. Id. at 2-3. When she returned to her PCP for treatment on January 25, 2021, Petitioner reported right upper arm pain that began after her Tdap vaccination. Ex. 9 at 28. In addition, Petitioner provided affidavit testimony stating that she received the vaccine in her right arm and experienced immediate “excruciating pain at the injection site.” Ex. 1 at ¶6, 9. Petitioner’s pre-vaccination medical records also show she had no history of pain or dysfunction in her right shoulder. She suffered from right shoulder pain after vaccination and sought treatment quickly, within weeks, while consistently attributing her pain to a Tdap vaccine administered to her right shoulder. Petitioner only ever reported right shoulder pain resulting from her vaccination and received treatment only to her right shoulder. There is no evidence in the record of any other possible cause of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain. Respondent argues that the vaccine administration record should be afforded more weight than the other records, over Petitioner’s statements that establish vaccination in the right arm rather than the left. Resp. at 7. However, this is not a case in which there are no contemporaneous records supporting Petitioner’s statements regarding the site of vaccination – and thus where only witness statements support Petitioner’s situs contentions. Rather, Petitioner reported right shoulder pain to her chiropractor only 17 days after her Tdap vaccination – the first time she reported pain. Ex. 8 at 2. She continued to attribute right shoulder pain to her vaccination over the following 18 months. Id. at 2-3. On May 12, 2020, Petitioner’s chiropractor observed swelling on her right upper arm. Ex. 8 at 2. When she returned to her PCP for treatment, she again reported right shoulder pain since her vaccination, as well as a lump at the injection site. Ex. 9 at 27-29. At that visit, the doctor observed Petitioner’s right shoulder pain during a range of motion examination and ordered an ultrasound of Petitioner’s right arm to check for a mass or other abnormality. Id. There is ample contemporaneous 5 Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/03/24 Page 6 of 6 evidence in the record, and not only Petitioner’s statements, to rebut the single notation of vaccination in the left arm. Respondent also highlights that Petitioner did not mention right shoulder pain at each and every medical visit she had after her vaccination. Resp. at 8. While true, this argument does not negate the fact that when she did mention shoulder pain resulting from her vaccination, Petitioner unwaveringly stated that she received the vaccination in her right arm. Petitioner’s failure to mention shoulder pain at intervening appointments could impact other determinations, such as damages, but does not undermine my conclusion that she has preponderantly established vaccination in her right arm. Overall, Petitioner’s own assertions are sufficiently corroborated by the medical records to accept her contention of vaccine situs. V. Scheduling Order Respondent shall file, by Friday, May 31, 2024, a status report indicating how he intends to proceed in light of this fact ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 6 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01228-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-05 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/03/2024) regarding 38 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/05/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1228V SAVANNAH SHARPE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 3, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Timothy William O’Hara, Marvin Firestone MD, JD & Associates, LLP, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On April 16, 2021, Savannah Sharpe 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 relate to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) following a tetanus vaccination she received on July 16, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her symptoms have persisted for more than six months. Petition at ¶ 18. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 26, 2024, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he states that he does not contest that, based on my Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 1 Because this Ruling 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 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 (2018). Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 43 Filed 08/05/24 Page 2 of 2 law (ECF No. 32), Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Respondent states that “Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her right shoulder; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; the pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain Petitioner’s left shoulder pain.” Id. at 4-5. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the Findings of Fact, Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 5. 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 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01228-cl-extra-10734604 Date issued/filed: 2024-08-05 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10268014 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1228V SAVANNAH SHARPE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 3, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Timothy William O’Hara, Marvin Firestone MD, JD & Associates, LLP, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On April 16, 2021, Savannah Sharpe 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 relate to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) following a tetanus vaccination she received on July 16, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her symptoms have persisted for more than six months. Petition at ¶ 18. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 26, 2024, Respondent filed his Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he states that he does not contest that, based on my Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 1 Because this Ruling 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 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 (2018). law (ECF No. 32), Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Respondent states that “Petitioner suffered a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her right shoulder; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; the pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain Petitioner’s left shoulder pain.” Id. at 4-5. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the Findings of Fact, Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 5. 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 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01228-2 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-03 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/01/2024) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kle) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/03/24 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1228V SAVANNAH SHARPE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 1, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Timothy William O’Hara, Marvin Firestone MD, JD & Associates, LLP, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On April 16, 2021, Savannah Sharpe 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 DTaP vaccination she received on July 16, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 3, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On July 31, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00. Proffer at 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. 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 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/03/24 Page 2 of 5 Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $55,000.00 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 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-01228-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/03/24 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS SAVANNAH SHARPE, Petitioner, v. No. 21-1228V Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On April 16, 2021, Savannah Sharpe (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a tetanus- diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccination on July 16, 2019. Petition at 1. On June 26, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact ruling that petitioner received the subject vaccine in her right arm, and the medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 36. On July 3, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”).1 ECF No. 38. 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 Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/03/24 Page 4 of 5 I. Items of Compensation Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00. This amount represents 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 a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $55,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments a. Lump sum payment to petitioner, Savannah Sharpe: $55,000.00 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 reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s July 3, 2024, entitlement decision. 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 lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:21-vv-01228-UNJ Document 44 Filed 09/03/24 Page 5 of 5 LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/ MADELYN E. WEEKS MADELYN E. WEEKS Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 305-3262 madelyn.e.weeks@usdoj.gov Dated: July 31, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 5: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01228-cl-extra-10734358 Date issued/filed: 2024-09-03 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267768 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1228V SAVANNAH SHARPE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: August 1, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Timothy William O’Hara, Marvin Firestone MD, JD & Associates, LLP, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 On April 16, 2021, Savannah Sharpe 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 DTaP vaccination she received on July 16, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 3, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. On July 31, 2024, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00. Proffer at 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. 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). Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $55,000.00 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 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 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS SAVANNAH SHARPE, Petitioner, v. No. 21-1228V Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On April 16, 2021, Savannah Sharpe (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a tetanus- diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccination on July 16, 2019. Petition at 1. On June 26, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s Findings of Fact ruling that petitioner received the subject vaccine in her right arm, and the medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 36. On July 3, 2024, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”).1 ECF No. 38. 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 I. Items of Compensation Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $55,000.00. This amount represents 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 a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $55,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments a. Lump sum payment to petitioner, Savannah Sharpe: $55,000.00 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 reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s July 3, 2024, entitlement decision. 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 lost earnings and future pain and suffering. 2 LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/ MADELYN E. WEEKS MADELYN E. WEEKS Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 305-3262 madelyn.e.weeks@usdoj.gov Dated: July 31, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 6: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-01228-cl-extra-11099209 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-14 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10632622 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1228V SAVANNAH SHARPE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: June 13, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Timothy William O’Hara, Marvin Firestone MD, JD & Associates, LLP, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On April 16, 2021, Savannah Sharpe 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 alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration following a DTaP vaccination she received on July 16, 2019. Petition, ECF No. 1. On August 1, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 41. 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 inf ormation, 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 f rom 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 ref erences 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 $39,207.47 (representing $38,680.37 in fees plus $527.10 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed January 22, 2025, ECF No. 46. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that she incurred $50.00 in personal out- of-pocket expenses. ECF No. 46 at 51. Respondent reacted to the motion on January 24, 2025, indicating that he is satisfied the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case but deferring resolution of the amount to be awarded to my discretion. Motion at 2-4, ECF No. 47. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. Petitioner requests that I adopt the hourly rates of $500.00 for work performed by attorney Michael Firestone in 2025, and the hourly rate of $530.00 for 2024 work performed by attorney Tim O’Hara. In my experience, the proposed rates are reasonable overall, and I find no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I have also reviewed the requested costs. Petitioner’s counsel has provided supporting documentation for claimed litigation costs (ECF No. 46 at 25-27), except for $50.00 dollars claimed for Petitioner’s personal out-of-pocket expenses. I will nevertheless reimburse these costs in full, since the unsubstantiated amount is not particularly large. But Petitioner’s counsel should be aware that any future requests for costs may result in a curtailed (or denied) award for failure to include the required supporting documentation. See Guidelines for Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program at 75-78 (emphasis added). 3 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. Petitioner is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $39,207.47 (representing $38,680.37 in fees plus $527.10 in 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 3 The guidelines f or Practice Under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program can be f ound at: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/guidelines-practice-under-national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program 2 Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by f iling a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 3