In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1605V

UNPUBLISHED

STEPHEN McGEORGE,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: May 28, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Carl Joseph McCoy, McCoy & McCoy Attorneys at Law LLC, Newark, OH, for petitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 15, 2019, Stephen McGeorge 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of his October 24, 2018 influneza (“flu”) vaccination.

Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters.

On May 24, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) and Proffer on Compensation 

report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. 

Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Compensation at 1. 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

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). This means the ruling 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

Specifically, Respondent indicates that 

Under the Vaccine Act, petitioner may demonstrate eligibility for an award 

of compensation by showing that he suffered a vaccine-specific injury listed 

on the Vaccine Injury Table within the requisite time period set forth in the 

Table, in which case causation is presumed. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3.

Medical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, 

Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), have reviewed the facts 

of this case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria

for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or 

dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine

administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination 

findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; he more 

likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine 

administration; his pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the 

shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is

no other condition or abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s 

symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10). Therefore, petitioner is entitled to 

a presumption of vaccine causation.

Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that

[w]ith respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, the records show 

that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United 

States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by 

suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six 

months after vaccine administration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). 

Petitioner also avers that “[n]either I nor anyone on my behalf has ever 

received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for [his] 

vaccine-related injury.” Ex. 3 at 2.

Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master