VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00780 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00780 Petitioner: Saeeda Syed Filed: 2025-08-11 Decided: 2025-09-05 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2023-10-12 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 62536 AI-assisted case summary: Saeeda Syed filed a petition on August 11, 2025, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Ms. Syed alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 12, 2023. She further alleged that the injury resulted in residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied that Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury, that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner's alleged shoulder injury or any other injury, and denied that Petitioner's current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation, while maintaining their respective positions. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the court's decision. The stipulation awarded Saeeda Syed a lump sum of $62,536.21, to be paid via ACH deposit to her counsel's IOLTA account for prompt disbursement. This amount was designated as compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Act. The court approved this award, and judgment was directed to be entered. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Saeeda Syed alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccine on October 12, 2023, with residual effects lasting over six months. Respondent denied a SIRVA Table injury, causation, or sequelae. The parties stipulated to a settlement. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. The case was compensated via stipulation, with an award of $62,536.21. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the decision on September 5, 2025. Petitioner's counsel was Alison Haskins of Siri & Glimstad, LLP, and Respondent's counsel was Katherine Carr Esposito of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice. The theory of causation was based on the "Table" for SIRVA. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00780-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-09-05 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/11/2025) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ers) Service on parties made. (Main Document 43 replaced on 9/8/2025 to remove the dropbox signature page.) (fm). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:24-vv-00780-UNJ Document 43 Filed 09/05/25 Page 1 of 7 CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-780V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SAEEDA SYED, * Chief Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: August 11, 2025 * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner. Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On May 20, 2024, Saeeda Syed (“Petitioner”) filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 (ECF No. 1) (“Pet.”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 12, 2023. Pet. at 1. She further alleges that she has experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that the Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury, that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury, and denies that the Petitioner’s 1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public in its present form. Id. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix). 1 Case 1:24-vv-00780-UNJ Document 43 Filed 09/05/25 Page 2 of 7 current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. Stipulation, dated August 7, 2025 (ECF No. 34) (“Stipulation”). I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein. The Stipulation awards: (cid:120) A lump sum of $62,536.21 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Act. I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.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 if (jointly or separately) they file notices renouncing their right to seek review. 2 Case 1:24-vv-00780-UNJ Document 43 Filed 09/05/25 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:24-vv-00780-UNJ Document 43 Filed 09/05/25 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:24-vv-00780-UNJ Document 43 Filed 09/05/25 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:24-vv-00780-UNJ Document 43 Filed 09/05/25 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:24-vv-00780-UNJ Document 43 Filed 09/05/25 Page 7 of 7