United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Adams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided August 23, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-0703V UNPUBLISHED

JOY ADAMS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: July 19, 2021 v.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA) John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On June 10, 2020, Joy Adams 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 as the result of a Tdap vaccine administered to her on June 11, 2017, she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at Preamble. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On July 19, 2021, 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 states that “Petitioner suffered a Table injury of right SIRVA. DICP did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s right SIRVA, and based on the medical records … petitioner met the statutory requirements by experiencing six months of residual effects.” Id. at 7. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine 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

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.