United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Reynolds v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 19, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1165V UNPUBLISHED

HOLLY REYNOLDS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: December 20, 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) Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On September 9, 2020, Holly Reynolds 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on October 24, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. Petitioner further alleges she received the vaccine in the United States, that she continues to suffer the residual effects of her SIRVA more than six months post-vaccination, and that neither she nor any other person has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 9-11. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 17, 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 has indicated “it is [his] position that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for a SIRVA injury from her Tdap vaccine.” Id. at 8. Respondent further agrees that “based on the current record, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 Section 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.