Syed v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

• Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
• Decided: September 5, 2025
• Docket: 24-0780V
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

CORRECTED

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-780V

************************* * SAEEDA SYED, * Chief Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: August 11, 2025 * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * *************************

Alison Haskins, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner.

Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On May 20, 2024, Saeeda Syed (“Petitioner”) filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”). 2 (ECF No. 1) (“Pet.”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 12, 2023. Pet. at 1. She further alleges that she has experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months.

Respondent denies that the Petitioner sustained a SIRVA Table injury, that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury, or any other injury, and denies that the Petitioner’s

1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) 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 in its present form. Id. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

1 current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. Stipulation, dated August 7, 2025 (ECF No. 34) (“Stipulation”).

I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein.

The Stipulation awards:

x A lump sum of $62,536.21 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.

Stipulation at ¶ 8. These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Act.

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. 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. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices renouncing their right to seek review.