In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-654V

UNPUBLISHED

DONA KAPLAN, as Executrix of the

Estate of Harold Kaplan,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: December 10, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Mark Theodore Sadaka, Mark T. Sadaka, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner.

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

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On May 2, 2019, Harold Kaplan filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”).3 Mr. Kaplan alleged that as a result of his October 2, 2017 influenza (“flu”) 

vaccination he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). 

See Petition at 1. 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).

3 Dona Kaplan was substituted as Petitioner in this case on October 26, 2020, following the death of Mr. 

Kaplan. 
2

On December 8, 2020, 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

Recommending Compensation and Proffer of Compensation at 1, 3-4. Specifically, 

Respondent indicates that 

[m]edical 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, Mr. Kaplan 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 Mr. Kaplan’s 

symptoms.

Id. at 3-4 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10)). 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 Mr. Kaplan suffering the residual effects or 

complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. at 4 

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 11(c)(1)(D)(i)).

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