Case Information
*1 In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1988V Chief Special Master Corcoran HEATHER COFFELT, Filed: October 17, 2025 Petitioner, v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Dima Atiya, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES
[1] On December 3, 2024, Heather Coffelt 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of a tetanus and diphtheria (“Td”) vaccination she received on December 7, 2023. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 10, 2025, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. On October 14, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded a total of $50,388.79, consisting of $47,500.00 in pain and suffering and $2,888.79 in past unreimbursable expenses. Proffer at 1-2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees *2 with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $50,388.79 (consisting of $47,500.00 in pain and suffering and $2,888.79 in past unreimbursable expenses), to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. [3] IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master *3 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS HEATHER COFFELT,
Petitioner, v. No. 24-1988V
Chief Special Master Corcoran SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent. PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION On December 3, 2024, Heather Coffelt (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation (“petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34, as amended (“Act”). She alleges that she sustained a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following receipt of a tetanus and diphtheria (“Td”) vaccination administered on December 7, 2023. See Petition at 1. On July 8, 2025, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report, concluding that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury. See ECF No. 15. On July 10, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA Table injury. See ECF No. 16.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded the following:
*4 A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $47,500.00 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 $2,888.79. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 15(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
The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment, as described below, and request that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:
A lump sum payment of $50,388.79 to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner, Heather Coffelt. Petitioner is a competent adult. Proof of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO Director Torts Branch, Civil Division *5 HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division LARA A. ENGLUND Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/ Dima J. Atiya DIMA JAWAD ATIYA 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) 880-0182 Dima.Atiya@usdoj.gov Dated: October 14, 2025
3
[1] Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Decision will be available 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 which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).
[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.
[1] This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to address after the Damages Decision is issued.
[2] Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering, and the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. 2