The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Webber v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims

Webber v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

15-1506·Judge: Nora Beth Dorsey0 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-1506V Filed: October 21, 2016 UNPUBLISHED

**************************** SUSAN G. WEBBER, * * Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages; v. * Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular Pertussis * (“Tdap”) Vaccination; Shoulder Injury SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Related to Vaccine Administration AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit * (“SPU”) Respondent. * * **************************** Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On December 14, 2015, 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 her March 4, 2015 Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 1.

On October 20, 2016, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. Stipulation at 7. The parties’ Stipulation indicates that petitioner suffered SIRVA as “the result of the administration of the Tdap vaccine she received on or about March 4, 2015, and [that petitioner] experienced the residual effects of her injury for more than six months.” Stipulation at 4. The parties’ Stipulation further indicates “[p]etitioner represents that there has been

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her condition” and “[t]here is not a preponderance of evidence . . . that petitioner’s condition is due to a factor unrelated to her . . . vaccination.” Stipulation at 5-6.

The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:

A lump sum of $147,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation at 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey 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

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap