# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 961 V

UNPUBLISHED

EDWARD TAYLOR

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: February 9, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing 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.

Debra A. Filteau Begley , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On Ju ly 3, 2019

, Edward Taylor 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 he suffered a Table injury

- a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”)

- as a result of a Tetanus

- d iphtheria

- acellular p ertussis (Tdap) vaccine administered on March 20 , 201 8 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to

the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 8, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2 1. Specifically, R espondent indicates that

DICP [ the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of

Health and Human Services ] has reviewed the petition and medical records

filed in this case and has concluded that compensation is appropriate because petitioner meets the criteria for a presumed SIRVA, as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction in his right shoulder; his pain occurred withi n 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; his pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain his symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3( a), (c)(10); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 13(a)(1)(B).

Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “ the statutory six

- month sequela requirement has

been satisfied. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 11(c)(D)(I). Therefore, based on the record as it

now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensa tion under the

Vaccine Act. ” Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master