# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0002V

UNPUBLISHED

CECILIA ORTIZ,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: August 29, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Martin Conway Galvin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On January 2, 2019, Cecilia Ortiz fil ed a petition for co mpensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensati on Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suff ered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered on January 20, 2016. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her injuries lasted for more th an six months. Petition at 4. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 6, 2020, Respon dent filed his Rule 4(c) report recommending that compensation be denied, arguing t hat the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain was not

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned ex planation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims ' website in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 cons titute 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 within 48 hours of vaccination. ECF No. 29. Afte r the parties briefed the issue, I issued a ruling finding that Petitioner’s shoulder pain likely began with the 48-hour timeframe for a

Table claim. ECF No. 39 at 2.

On August 29, 2022, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he

states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[b[ased on the Chief Special Maser’s fact ruling, and the evi dence submitted in this case, DICP will not continue to contest that petit ioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.”

Id. at 7-8. Respondent further agrees that:

[P]etitioner had no recent hist ory of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours afte r receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; the pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and, no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial neuritis, has been identified to explain petitioner’s left shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100. 3(a), (c)(10). In addition, petitioner suffered the

residual effects of her condition for more than six months. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore, based on th e record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the Fi ndings of Fact, respondent does not dispute that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation

under the Act.

Id. at 8.

In view of Respondent’s position a nd 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