United States Court of Federal Claims, 2026

Toledo-Narciso v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided June 10, 2026 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-0613V

CATHERINE TOLEDO-NARCISO, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, v. Filed: May 5, 2026 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner. Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On April 9, 2025, Catherine Toledo-Narciso filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 C.F.R. § 100.3, as the result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination received on November 22, 2022. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 28, 2025, a Ruling on Entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for a SIRVA. On May 5, 2026, Respondent filed a Proffer on an award of compensation (“Proffer”). Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. at 2. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached proffer, Petitioner is awarded a lump sum of $67,500.00 (for pain and suffering) to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner.

This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Proffer at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

CATHERINE TOLEDO-NARCISO,

Petitioner,

Case No. 25-613V (ECF) v. CHIEF SPECIAL MASTER

CORCORAN SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION1

On April 9, 2025, Catherine Toledo-Narciso (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), alleging that she suffered a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination received on November 22, 2022. Petition at 1. On October 27, 2025, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed his Rule 4(c) Report, indicating that this case is appropriate for compensation under the terms of the Act for a Table SIRVA injury. ECF No. 20. On January 13, 2026, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation. ECF No. 21.

I. Items of Compensation and Form of the Award

Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $67,500.00 for pain and suffering. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.

II. Form of the Award/Recommended Payment

The parties recommend that compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a lump sum payment as described below and request that the Chief Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following: 2

A lump sum payment of $67,500.00, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner Catherine Toledo-Narciso.

Petitioner is a competent adult. Proof of guardianship is not required in this case.

Respectfully submitted, BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General JONATHAN D. GUYNN Acting Director Torts Branch, Civil Division HEATHER L. PEARLMAN Deputy Director Torts Branch, Civil Division JENNIFER L. REYNAUD Assistant Director Torts Branch, Civil Division s/ Mark K. Hellie MARK K. HELLIE Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 T: (202) 616-4208 E: [email protected]

DATED: May 5, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that today, May 5, 2026, a copy of the foregoing pleading was served by electronic mail to petitioner’s counsel, Elizabeth M. Muldowney, at [email protected]. s/ Mark K. Hellie MARK K. HELLIE Trial Attorney Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044-0146 T: (202) 616-4208 E: [email protected]

DATED: May 5, 2026

1 Because this Decision 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 Decision 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 (2018). 1 This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to address after the Damages Decision is issued. 2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.

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