# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 351 V

Filed: November 5, 2014

Not for Publication

*************************************

MARILYN ERICKSON

, *

* Damages decision b ased on

Petitioner

, * s tipulation; tetanus

- diphtheria

-

* acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine;

v. * shoulder injury; rotator cuff tear;

* tendinitis; impingement syndrome;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * bursitis; fees and costs decision

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * based on stipulation

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Paul R. Brazil

, Philadelphia, PA , for petitioner.

Lisa A. Watts , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS ’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On November 5 , 2014

, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to

settle this case and described th e settlement terms. Petitioner allege s that s he suffered l eft

shoulder injuries, including a rotator cuff tear, tendinitis, impingement syndrome, and/or bursitis,

as a result of h er receipt of tetanus

- diphtheria

- acellular pertussis ( “ Tdap ” ) vaccine on March 5,

2013

. Petitioner further alleges that s he suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than

six months. Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged left shoulder

injuries or any other injury

, a nd further denies that petitioner ’ s current disabilities are sequelae of

a vac cine

- related injury

. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation f or the special master’ s action i n this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- G overnment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat.

2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be

made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial informat ion that

is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a

clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify

and move to redact such information p rior to the document = s disclosure. If the special master, upon

review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special

master shall redact such material from public access.2

The court finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable, hereby adopts the parties’

stipulation, and awards compensatio n in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant

to the attached stipulation, the court awards $ 1 35 ,000.00 for reimbursement for all damages that

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a) (2006).

The parties have also agreed on an appro priate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in

this case

. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner asserts that s he did not incur out

- of

p ocket expenses in pursuit of her petition. Petitioner requests $ 12

, 258

. 22 in attorneys’ fees and

costs . Res po ndent does not object to this amount

. The undersigned fi nds this amount to be

reasonable.

In sum , the court awards :

a. a lump sum of $1 35 ,000.00

, representing compensation for all damages that would be

av ailable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a) . The award shall be in the form of a check

made payable to petitioner in the amount of $1 35 ,000.00 ; and

b. a lump sum of $ 12

, 258

. 22 , representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs

. The award sha l l be in the form of a check made payable jointly to petitioner and

M uller Brazil, LLP in the amount of $ 12

, 258

. 22

.

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. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2014 / s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.