VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00556
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00556
Petitioner: Holly Rolley
Filed: 2022-05-23
Decided: 2023-09-26
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-07-03
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 66100

AI-assisted case summary:
Holly Rolley filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 23, 2022. She alleged that she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) as a result of her Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination on July 3, 2019. Ms. Rolley further alleged that she experienced residual effects for more than six months, that there had been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages related to her condition, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. The respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Ms. Rolley's alleged injuries or disabilities, or that it significantly aggravated any underlying conditions. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on August 30, 2023, agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Special Master Daniel T. Horner reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, Holly Rolley was awarded a lump sum of $66,100.80, payable to her. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The case was resolved via joint stipulation, and judgment was to be entered accordingly. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant of the Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, and respondent was represented by Parisa Tabassian of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Holly Rolley alleged that her July 3, 2019 Tdap vaccination caused Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) and residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to compensation. The Special Master adopted the stipulation, awarding $66,100.80. The public decision does not specify the theory of causation, the mechanism of injury, or name any experts. The case was resolved via stipulation.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00556-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-09-26
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/31/2023) regarding 30 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (sh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00556-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-556V
Filed: August 31, 2023
HOLLY ROLLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On May 23, 2022, 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result
of her July 3, 2019 Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition
at 1; Stipulation, filed August 30, 2023, 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
14; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner’s
alleged injuries; denies that the Tdap vaccine significantly aggravated any underlying
injury or conditions; and denies that the Tdap vaccine caused any other injury or
petitioner’s current disabilities. ” 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 1:22-vv-00556-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on August 30, 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 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 $66,100.80 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 1:22-vv-00556-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/26/23 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:22-vv-00556-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/26/23 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:22-vv-00556-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/26/23 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:22-vv-00556-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/26/23 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:22-vv-00556-UNJ Document 34 Filed 09/26/23 Page 7 of 7