In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1683V

(not to be published)

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

APRIL L. STRANG-KUTAY,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

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

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Filed: July 12, 2022

Entitlement; Decision by Proffer; 

Damages; Tdap Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration

(“SIRVA”). 

Jeffrey Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner

Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 31, 2018, April Strang-Kutay (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine 

Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) following administration of a Tdap vaccination she received 

on November 6, 2017. Pet. at 1.

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will 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 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 

As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion 

of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen 

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. Id. 

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. 

No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter 

“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the 

pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.
On November 2, 2021, I issued a Findings of Fact Regarding Situs and Onset, finding that 

Petitioner received her Tdap vaccination in her right arm and her shoulder pain began the same 

day. ECF No. 45. 

On April 18, 2022, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report stating the DICP has 

concluded that petitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Am. Resp’t’s 

Rep. at 5, ECF No. 52. 

I issued a Ruling on Entitlement the same day and referred this case to Special Master 

Sanders for ADR. ECF Nos. 53, 54. Special Master Sanders removed this case from the ADR 

Process on June 30, 2022. ECF No. 59. 

Respondent subsequently filed a proffer on July 11, 2022 (ECF No. 60), agreeing to issue 

the following payment: 

A lump sum payment of $115,060.49, paid in the form of a check to Petitioner;

comprising of: $110,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $5,060.49 for past 

unreimbursable expenses.

These amounts represent all elements of compensation for all damages that would be 

available under § 300aa-15(a). 

I adopt the parties’ proffer attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on 

the terms set forth therein. I, therefore, award compensation in the amount of a lump sum 

payment of $115,060.49, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, April Strang-Kutay. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/ Katherine E. Oler

Katherine E. Oler

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

APRIL L. STRANG-KUTAY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 18-1683V 

Special Master Oler 

ECF 

RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

 On October 31, 2018, April L. Strang-Kutay (“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 Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a 

Tdap vaccine she received on November 6, 2017. Petition at 1. On April 18, 2022, the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed an Amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report 

advising that, in light of Special Master Oler’s Findings of Fact ruling that petitioner received the 

Tdap vaccine in her right arm and that the onset of petitioner’s right arm pain occurred within 48 

hours of vaccination, and the medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute 

that petitioner had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine 

Act. Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 2 (ECF #52). That same day, Special Master Oler issued a 

Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for her 
2 

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”).1

 See Ruling on Entitlement (ECF 

#53). 

I. Items of Compensation 

A. Pain and Suffering 

Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $110,000.00 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 $5,060.49. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(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 Special Master’s decision and the 

1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein. 

Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, 

respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent 

reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s 

April 18, 2022, entitlement decision. 
3 

Court’s judgment award the following2

: a lump sum payment of $115,060.49, in the form of a 

check payable to petitioner. 

III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment 

Lump sum payable to petitioner, April L. Strang-Kutay: $115,060.49 

Respectfully submitted, 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO 

Acting Director 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

HEATHER L. PEARLMAN 

Deputy Director 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

LARA A. ENGLUND 

Assistant Director 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

 

 /s/ Emilie F. Williams 

 EMILIE F. WILLIAMS 

 Trial Attorney 

 Torts Branch, Civil Division 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

 P.O. Box 146 

 Benjamin Franklin Station 

 Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 

 Tel: (202) 305-0124 

 Emilie.williams@usdoj.gov 

 

DATED: July 11, 2022 

2

 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 lost earnings 

and future pain and suffering.