In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-0071V

UNPUBLISHED

ELSIE MCKAY,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 12, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 5, 2021, Elsie McKay 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 right shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from a tetanus diphtheria and acellular 

pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine received on April 26, 2018. Petition at 1. Petitioner further 

alleges that the Tdap vaccine was received in the United States, her symptoms have 

lasted for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has filed an 

action or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s 

vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 21-23. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

On August 12, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 

1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner had no history of pain or dysfunction 

in her right shoulder prior to the Tdap vaccine; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt 

of an intramuscular vaccination; the pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the 

shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality 

would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 10. Respondent further agrees that “given the 

medical records outlined [in the Rule 4(c) Report], the statutory six month sequelae 

requirement has been satisfied . . . . [and] petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites 

for compensation under the Act.” 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