Tatum v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-0472V

PETER TATUM, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 11, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Elizabeth Ellis Simek, Shannon Law Group, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.

Margaret Armstrong, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On March 28, 2024, Peter Tatum 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a human papillomavirus (“HPV”0 vaccine he received on January 17, 2023, or in the alternative, as a result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination also administered on January 17, 2023. Petition at 1- 2, 10-11. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual symptoms of his injury for more than six months. Petition at 10. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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.

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 (2018).

On July 11, 2025, 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’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of relevant pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced range of motion was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.”

Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months and 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