In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-640V

(not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Chief Special Master Corcoran

ADAM CRISPO, *

* Filed: April 30, 2020

Petitioner, * 

*

v. *

* Keywords: Ruling granting

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * entitlement; SIRVA;

HUMAN SERVICES, * Meningococcal vaccine.

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Bruce William Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., NY, for Petitioner

James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent 

RULING GRANTING ENTITLEMENT1

On May 4, 2018, Adam Crispo filed a petition seeking compensation under the National 

Vaccine and Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petition at 1(ECF No. 1). 

Petitioner alleges a Table claim—that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) attributable to a meningococcal vaccine he received on January 20, 

2017. Although the medical records filed in this case establish that Petitioner received extensive 

treatment for left arm and shoulder symptoms, other records seemed to establish that he had 

1 This Ruling will be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 

2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means that 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 Ruling’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 

Ruling will be available to the public in its current form. Id.

2 Counsel filed a status report on November 7, 2019, informing me of Ms. Rowan’s passing in September 2019, and 

also stating that her estate would be continuing to prosecute the claim. ECF No. 34. Earlier this month, counsel 

indicated that an estate representative had finally been appointed, and the caption has been revised to reflect the new 

petitioner. Order, dated April 16, 2020 (ECF No. 36).

CORRECTED
2

received vaccines (one meningococcal vaccine and one yellow fever vaccine, which cannot be the 

basis for a Program claim) in his right arm and deltoid.

A one-day fact hearing was held on January 17, 2020, to address both onset and situs of 

vaccination issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made two factual findings necessary, but 

not sufficient, to find in Petitioner’s favor.

3

See Order at 1–2, filed Jan. 21, 2020 (ECF No. 36). 

First, I found that Petitioner preponderantly established pain onset within 48 hours of vaccine 

administration. Id. at 1. Second, I found that Petitioner preponderantly established that he received 

the vaccines in his left arm. Id. at 2.

However, I noted that the hearing did not resolve all the issues regarding entitlement. Order 

at 2. Petitioner still needed to establish either that the meningococcal vaccine alone caused his 

injuries, or that it was the most likely “but for” cause of his injury, even if other factors (here, 

receipt of the yellow fever vaccine) played a role. See id. (citing Shyface v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 165 F.3d 1344 (1999)). Proving either theory could require expert testimony, 

another hearing, or possibly both. Id. Further, the facts of Petitioner’s case indicated that any 

potential entitlement award would likely be modest. Id. Given all of the above, I encouraged the 

parties to explore settling the case. Id.

On March 23, 2020, the parties submitted a joint status report indicating that Respondent 

did not intend to defend this case on other grounds, due to the factual findings made at the January 

17th hearing. Joint Status Rep. at 1 (ECF No. 42). Respondent requested thirty days to file an 

amended Rule 4(c) report to set forth his revised position. Id. On April 23, 2020, Respondent 

submitted an amended 4(c) Report, in which he conceded that “Petitioner suffered SIRVA as 

defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Amended 4(c) Rep. at 5, filed on April 23, 2020 (ECF No. 

43). Respondent maintained that Petitioner’s damages—if I award him entitlement—were limited 

to his “SIRVA and related sequalae only.” Id. Respondent also requested more information from 

Petitioner—e.g., more medical records, information on insurance policies, and care that Petitioner 

received for his SIRVA injury—that would help resolve the amount of compensation in this case. 

Id. at 6–7.

CONCLUSION

In light of Respondent’s Amended 4(c) Report and the concession it contains, as well as 

my fact hearing findings, I hereby determine that Petitioner has established an entitlement to 

damages under the Table’s SIRVA injury claim, and may therefore receive compensation under 

the Act for damages related to his SIRVA and its sequalae. 

 

3 To establish a Table SIRVA claim, a petitioner must show that onset of pain occurred within 48 hours, and that the 

“[p]ain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered.”

42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XV)(B), (c)(10)(iii).
3

In order to guide the parties through the damages phase of the action, a separate damages 

order will issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran

 Chief Special Master