In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1111V

Filed: September 16, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

SALVADOR MONARREZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

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.

Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 30, 2018, petitioner 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) 

vaccination administered on October 6, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to 

the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, undersigned is 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). 

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

On September 13, 2019, 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 “has concluded that petitioner’s medical 

course is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and 

corresponding Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation.” Id. at 4. Respondent further 

agrees that “petitioner had no pre-vaccination history of pain, inflammation, or 

dysfunction of his left shoulder; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an 

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

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

. . . has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. Respondent also 

notes that the petitioner suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six 

months. Id. 

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master