VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02120 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02120 Petitioner: Yuanith Juarez Filed: 2024-09-06 Decided: 2025-02-10 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2022-12-11 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 125841 AI-assisted case summary: Yuanith Juarez filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a Tdap vaccination on December 11, 2022. She further alleged that the injury caused residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Petitioner's injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that she had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation, recommending an award of $120,000.00 for pain and suffering and $5,841.74 for past unreimbursable expenses, totaling $125,841.74. Petitioner agreed with this proffered award. The Chief Special Master issued a Decision Awarding Damages, granting Petitioner a lump sum payment of $125,841.74 for pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02120-0 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-10 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 09/06/2024) regarding 22 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ppa) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-02120-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/10/24 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-2120V YUANITH JUAREZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 6, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On December 13, 2023, Yuanith Juarez (“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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on December 11, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On August 12, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 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 1:23-vv-02120-UNJ Document 25 Filed 10/10/24 Page 2 of 2 1, ECF No. 20. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. 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 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02120-cl-extra-10734024 Date issued/filed: 2024-10-10 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10267434 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-2120V YUANITH JUAREZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 6, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On December 13, 2023, Yuanith Juarez (“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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on December 11, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On August 12, 2024, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 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). 1, ECF No. 20. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. 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_23-vv-02120-cl-extra-10796621 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-07 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10330033 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-2120V Y.J., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: January 17, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR REDACTION 1 On December 13, 2023, 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 alleged that following her receipt of a tetanus-diphtheria- acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on December 11, 2022, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table. Petition, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the Office of Special Masters (“OSM”)’s Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). On November 22, 2024, I issued a Decision on Proffer (“Decision”) - a brief, two- page ruling that included Petitioner’s name, her vaccine-related injury, and the amount to be awarded in compensation. ECF No. 28. On December 5, 2024, Petitioner filed a timely 1 Because this unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 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). In light of my conclusion below, I intend to post this Order with a redacted caption. To the extent Petitioner would seek further redaction, 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. 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). Motion for Redaction. ECF No. 29. Respondent did not take a position regarding the request for redaction, but rather deferred to my discretion. ECF No. 31. Petitioner thereafter filed a Reply. ECF No. 32. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s Motion for Redaction (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED. I. Petitioner’s Motion for Redaction Petitioner requests redaction of her full name to her initials in the Decision’s case caption and its body. ECF No. 29. In support, she explains that she is employed as a nurse practitioner/law enforcement officer for the Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons. Id. at 2. She seeks to redact the Decision to protect her identity from incarcerated individuals where she works from determining that she was awarded “considerable damages” in her vaccine case. Id. Petitioner argues her motion is justified “as it relates to [her] potential safety and privacy,” because a published Decision “may endanger her safety and subject her to harassment and threats[,]” as “[a]ny prisoner is able to Google Petitioner’s name, which exposes her to danger.” ECF No. 32 at 2. Petitioner thus requests the redaction of her name to initials in the Decision because the rationale for the “Court’s Judgment and Decision Awarding Damages will not be disturbed in any way by modifying [her] name to reveal only her initials in the caption.” Id. As noted, Respondent has not taken a position regarding the request for redaction. See generally, ECF No. 31. II. Legal Standard I have previously discussed in other decisions the Vaccine Act’s treatment of requests to redact Program decisions and rulings. See generally K.L. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-0312V, 2015 WL 11387761, at *2-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 27, 2015), mot. for review den’d, 123 Fed. Cl. 497 (2015) (denying a request to redact petitioner’s name and description of illnesses). Generally, information provided in vaccine proceedings may not be disclosed without the written consent of the party providing the information. Section 12(d)(4)(A); Vaccine Rule 18(a). However, the Act requires disclosure of the decisions of the special masters or the Court, and thus later allows (once a claim has been decided) the disclosure of information previously not permitted to be shared with the public. Otherwise, the Act provides for redaction of certain categories of information – “medical files and similar files” – only if the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Section 12(d)(4)(B); accord Vaccine Rule 18(b). Some levels of redaction are explicitly recognized as reasonable in the context of Program cases. In particular, the Vaccine Rules allow the initials of a minor to be used in the petition’s caption when filed. Vaccine Rule 16(b). By contrast, adult petitioners’ names 2 are not afforded automatic protection; instead, adult claimants must affirmatively establish a basis for redaction. Thus, the Act assumes (consistent with the approach in most federal litigation) that an adult claimant’s name will be disclosed in the context of publication of a Vaccine Program decision. Program case law has not established a consistent “rule” for how redaction requests should be analyzed and treated. Compare W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 100 Fed. Cl. 440, 460-61 (Fed. Cl. 2011) aff’d, 704 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (analogizing Vaccine Act’s privacy concerns to treatment of similar issues under the Freedom of Information Act, claimant’s name was properly subject to redaction from decision) with Langland v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 07-0036V, 2011 WL 802695, at *7-8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Feb. 3, 2011), mot. for rev. denied on non-relevant grounds, 109 Fed. Cl. 421 (2013) (petitioners not entitled to redaction of names from decision where they failed to establish compelling grounds for so doing). Langland adopts a more stringent approach, while W.C. emphasizes a balancing test that weighs a petitioner’s privacy interests against “the public purpose of the Vaccine Act.” W.C., 100 Fed. Cl. at 460-61; K.L., 2015 WL 11387761, at *2-3. Indeed, the Langland approach acknowledges that the plain language of the Vaccine Act, specifically § 12(d)(4)(B), requires decisions to be disclosed to the public. Windhorst v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 13-647V, 2017 WL 728045, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 10, 2017). Further, “special masters have concluded that public disclosure of a vaccinee’s medical condition is not a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy because the vaccinee places his or her medical condition in contention by filing a claim.” Windhorst, 2017 WL 728045, at *2. With using either the Langland or W.C. approach, however, a petitioner needs to make some showing to justify the relief of redaction; redaction is not available simply at a petitioner’s beck and call. W.C., 100 Fed. Cl. at 460 (balancing of interests favors redaction “where an objection [to disclosure] is made on reasonable grounds”) (emphasis added). I have permitted redaction in cases where such a specialized showing was made without reconciling these two competing standards or choosing one over the other. See, e.g., K.L. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 12-0312V, 2015 WL 11882259 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 30, 2015) (granting petitioner’s second request to redact only her name to initials which was accompanied by additional information regarding the potential harm she may suffer regarding her employment). A petitioner’s general concern for privacy – something undoubtedly shared by many vaccine case petitioners – is not by itself a sufficient reason for redaction, especially when there is a strong public interest in the information’s disclosure. W.C., 100 Fed. Cl. 3 at 461; see also Castagna v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 99-411V, 2011 WL 4348135, at *11 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 25, 2011) (denying redaction to an adult who had “not alleged the existence of any special circumstances that would justify her request,” and emphasizing that the Vaccine Act did not give petitioners “a categorical right to anonymity”). In many cases, redaction is deemed appropriate because the petitioner shows some nexus with the medical profession, and a related concern that disclosure of the claim could result in bias against the individual. M.A. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 18-103V, 2020 WL 7137075 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 21, 2020) (granting redaction when the petitioner established he was concerned about his employment (and thus financial) security if his employer (a large medical provider with knowledge of the Vaccine Program) were to learn of the existence or extent of his vaccine-related injury). But this cannot be the sole circumstances in which redaction is allowed. Indeed, privacy concerns of incarcerated individuals have also been considered. T.R. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 23-730V, 2024 WL 4635581 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 24, 2024) (granting redaction to an incarcerated petitioner who was concerned of safety risks if his shoulder injury were revealed to his fellow inmates). At bottom, and as the Court of Federal Claims recently confirmed, “[e]ach request for redaction must be made by applying the specifics in the case in which the redaction request is made, and . . . provide the necessary analysis regarding the current petitioner to explain the specific circumstances which would make redaction inappropriate [or appropriate].” K.N. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-0722V, 2023 WL 6295167 Fed. Cl. 142, 156 (Fed. Cl. 2023) (finding petitioner’s potential employment harm was not found to be remote, as she established she was planning to pursue a career in microbiology, immunology, and vaccines, and thus the existence and disclosure of her mental health conditions, medications, or her vaccine-related claim would harm those employment prospects and create an unwarranted invasion of privacy). Absent a similar “hook,” the mere claim that it is possible a person would face difficulties if the fact of a case was disclosed amounts to speculation. And the standard for redaction should not simply be to allow it whenever “the petitioner asks for it” (since to do so would be to deny relief to claimants solely because they fail to make such a request). III. Analysis In this case, I find that Petitioner has shown that redaction is warranted – even though the Decision in question reveals nothing about Petitioner other than her name. 4 But Petitioner’s redaction request is not rooted in a concern about possible adverse treatment by the general public, or the mere desire to maintain her privacy in bringing this matter. Rather, she reasonably focuses on her personal safety from threats and/or harassment arising from her specific employment circumstances (which are wholly distinguishable from most claimants). T.R. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs. stands as a helpful comparison. In T.R., redaction was granted to a prison inmate who established a concern for personal harm while incarcerated, as revealing the presence of his vaccine-related shoulder injury to other inmates would make him appear “weak” and likely susceptible to physical danger. See 2024 WL 4635581, at *3. The T.R. petitioner’s concerns were persuasively rooted in his personal experience of the safety risks within a prison population – both in a specific sense (as he had a shoulder injury) and as a general sense for his wellbeing in a prison setting. See id. Petitioner’s request herein has some comparable qualities. In addition, this case involves a SIRVA, a very common kind of injury in the Program today. It thus is not a matter where the complex nature of science involved in adjudicating the matter calls out for public disclosure of the case’s disposition. The proposed relief, of simply reducing Petitioner’s full name to her initials in the Decision, is appropriately tailored. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED. A redacted version of the Decision on Proffer (ECF No. 28) shall be entered onto the docket for public accessibility. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master 5 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02120-2 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-10 Pages: 5 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/22/2024) regarding 28 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:23-vv-02120-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/10/25 Page 1 of 5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-2120V Y.J., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 22, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On December 13, 2023, Y.J. (“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 a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination administered to her on December 11, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On September 6, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 22. On November 22, 2024, 1 When this Decision was originally filed, I advised Petitioner of my intent 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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This Decision is being posted with the granted redactions. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made. This Decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for redaction. 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 1:23-vv-02120-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/10/25 Page 2 of 5 Respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $120,000.00 in pain and suffering and $5,841.74 in past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1-2, ECF No. 27. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. See id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $125,841.74 for pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses, 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 1:23-vv-02120-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/10/25 Page 3 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Y.J., Petitioner, No. 23-2120V v. Chief Special Master Corcoran ECF SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER On December 13, 2023, Y.J. (“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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of a “tetanus vaccination” received on December 11, 2022. Petition at 1-2, 7. On August 12, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for SIRVA, and on September 6, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 20; ECF No. 22. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $120,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. Case 1:23-vv-02120-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/10/25 Page 4 of 5 B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $5,841.74. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. These amounts represent 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 following1: a lump sum payment of $125,841.74, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Y.J.: $125,841.74 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C.SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 1 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, unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering. 2 Case 1:23-vv-02120-UNJ Document 35 Filed 02/10/25 Page 5 of 5 HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR. Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Parisa Tabassian PARISA TABASSIAN Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 305-4035 Parisa.Tabassian@usdoj.gov Date: November 22, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 5: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02120-cl-extra-10796888 Date issued/filed: 2025-02-10 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10330300 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-2120V Y.J., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 22, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1 On December 13, 2023, Y.J. (“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 a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination administered to her on December 11, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was received in the United States, she suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On September 6, 2024, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. ECF No. 22. On November 22, 2024, 1 When this Decision was originally filed, I advised Petitioner of my intent 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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner filed a timely motion to redact certain information. This Decision is being posted with the granted redactions. Except for those changes and this footnote, no other substantive changes have been made. This Decision will be posted on the court’s website with no further opportunity to move for redaction. 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). Respondent filed a Proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $120,000.00 in pain and suffering and $5,841.74 in past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1-2, ECF No. 27. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. See id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $125,841.74 for pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses, 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 Y.J., Petitioner, v. No. 23-2120V Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. RESPONDENT’S PROFFER On December 13, 2023, Y.J. (“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 Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of a “tetanus vaccination” received on December 11, 2022. Petition at 1-2, 7. On August 12, 2024, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for SIRVA, and on September 6, 2024, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 20; ECF No. 22. I. Items of Compensation A. Pain and Suffering Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $120,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees. B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that she incurred past unreimbursable expenses related to her vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $5,841.74. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(a)(1)(B). Petitioner agrees. These amounts represent 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 following 1: a lump sum payment of $125,841.74, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment Lump sum payable to petitioner, Y.J.: $125,841.74 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division 1 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, unreimbursed expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering. 2 HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division VORIS E. JOHNSON, JR. Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division /s/ Parisa Tabassian PARISA TABASSIAN Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044-0146 Tel: (202) 305-4035 Parisa.Tabassian@usdoj.gov Date: November 22, 2024 3 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 6: USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-02120-cl-extra-11089419 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-03 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10622831 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-2120V Y.J., Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 28, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Parisa Tabassian, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS 1 On December 13, 2023, Y.J., 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 tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine she received on December 11, 2022. Petition, ECF No. 1. On November 22, 2024, I issued a decision awarding compensation to Petitioner based on the Respondent’s proffer. ECF No. 28. 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). Petitioner has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, requesting an award of $24,895.41 (representing $21,708.50 in fees plus $3,186.91 in costs). Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Motion”) filed April 3, 2025, ECF No. 37. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a signed statement representing that no personal out-of-pocket expenses were incurred. ECF No. 37-4. Respondent reacted to the motion on April 9, 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. 38. Petitioner filed no reply thereafter. I have reviewed the billing records submitted with Petitioner’s request. In my experience, the request appears reasonable, and I find no cause to reduce the requested hours or rates. Furthermore, Petitioner has provided supporting documentation for all claimed costs. ECF No. 37-3 at 2-14. Respondent offered no specific objection to the rates or amounts sought. I find the requested costs reasonable and hereby award them in full. 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 $24,895.41 (representing $21,708.50 in fees plus $3,186.91 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 Rules of the Court), the Clerk of Court shall 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), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2