# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1779V

UNPUBLISHED

KATHERINE BELTZ,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: April 8, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Damages Decision Based on Proffer; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Amanda Pasciuto, U.S. Department of Just ice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On November 11, 2019, Katherine Beltz filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compens ation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that s he received a tetanus/diphtheria/acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on December 21, 2016, and that she subs equently suffered a left shoulder injury related to the vaccine admin istration (“SIRVA”), a Table injury. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special

Masters.

On April 8, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Pe titioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. On Ap ril 5, 2021, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) report and proffer on award of compensation (“Rule 4/Pr offer”) stating that Petitioner is entitled to compensation and should be awarded $47,500.00. Ru le 4/Proffer at 7. In the Rule

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will be availa ble 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 whic h would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits with in this definition, I will r edact 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).2 4/Proffer, Respondent repres ented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Pe titioner is entitled to an award as stated in

the Rule 4/Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stat ed in the Rule 4/Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $47,500.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for a ll damages that would be av ailable under § 15(a).

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in a ccordance 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 c an be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.