VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01203
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01203
Petitioner: Edwin M. Laird
Filed: 2017-09-06
Decided: 2019-01-07
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2015-01-16
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), specifically left shoulder bursitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 95000

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 6, 2017, Edwin M. Laird (who later changed his name to Edwin M. Mercado) filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), specifically left shoulder bursitis, and lumbar pain as a result of the improper administration of a Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine in his left shoulder on January 16, 2015. Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report stating that Petitioner's bursitis claim was compensable under the Vaccine Act but did not concede that the lumbar pain was causally linked to the vaccination. Petitioner agreed to accept the limited concession and pursue damages only for the bursitis. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling finding entitlement for the bursitis on October 2, 2018. Subsequently, the parties engaged in damages negotiations. On December 3, 2018, Special Master Corcoran issued a decision awarding damages based on a proffer agreed to by the parties. The award consisted of a lump sum payment of $95,000.00 for actual and projected pain and suffering. Petitioner was represented by John Hartman Ferguson of the Medical Injury Law Center, and Respondent was represented by Robert Paul Coleman, III of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued on January 7, 2019.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Edwin M. Laird (later Mercado) alleged a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), specifically left shoulder bursitis, and lumbar pain following a Tdap vaccination on January 16, 2015. Respondent conceded that the left shoulder bursitis claim was compensable under the Vaccine Act but did not concede a causal link for the lumbar pain. Petitioner accepted this limited concession. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found entitlement for the bursitis, concluding Petitioner satisfied all relevant Vaccine Act criteria and that the injury was caused-in-fact by the covered vaccine. The public text does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or detailed clinical findings. The parties stipulated to a damages award of $95,000.00 for actual and projected pain and suffering, paid as a lump sum. The ruling on entitlement was issued October 2, 2018, and the decision awarding damages was issued January 7, 2019. Petitioner's counsel was John Hartman Ferguson, and Respondent's counsel was Robert Paul Coleman, III.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01203-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-11-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 10/2/2018) Regarding 22 Ruling on Entitlement (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mml) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01203-UNJ Document 24 Filed 11/05/18 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1203
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
EDWIN M. LAIRD *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: October 2, 2018
*
v. *
* Entitlement; Shoulder Injury
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Related to Vaccine Administration
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SIRVA”); Conceded.
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
John Hartman Ferguson, Medical Injury Law Center, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT1
On September 6, 2017, Edwin Laird filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleged that he suffered from a
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the incorrect
administration of the Tetanus-Diptheria-acelluar Pertussis (“TDaP”) vaccine3 on January 16, 2015.
1 Although this Ruling has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court
of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means
the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B),
however, the parties may object to the Ruling’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically,
under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or
confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Ruling in its present form will be available. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 through 34 (2012)).
3 The Petition identifies this as the “DTP” vaccine (Pet. at 1), which is supported in at least one instance by Mr.
Laird’s medical records. Ex. 2 at 300, ECF No. 1-4. However, records elsewhere indicate that this was in fact the
TDaP vaccine. Id. at 5. The Court will cede to the parties and accept Respondent’s position that this was the TDaP
vaccine.

Case 1:17-vv-01203-UNJ Document 24 Filed 11/05/18 Page 2 of 2
Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. He further alleged that he experienced lumbar pain as a sequela of that injury.
Id.
In his Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent acknowledged that Petitioner’s left shoulder bursitis
claim is compensable under the Vaccine Act. Resp’t’s Rule 4(c) Report at 3, ECF No. 21.
Respondent specifically stated that medical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation
Programs, Department of Health and Human Services, have reviewed the petition and
accompanying documents filed in this case, as well as the relevant medical records, and
Respondent has concluded that Petitioner satisfied all relevant Vaccine Act criteria for his bursitis
claim. Id. However, Respondent does not concede that Mr. Laird’s lumbar injury can be causally
linked to the January 16, 2015 vaccination. Id. at 3–4.
Pursuant to a telephonic status conference held with the parties on October 1, 2018,
Petitioner agrees to accept Respondent’s limited concession and to recover damages for his bursitis
alone.
In view of Respondent’s concession, and based on my own review of the record (see §
300aa-13(a)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (a)(I)), I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for an
injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV), 100.3(b)(2). A
separate damages order will be issued shortly.
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Madeline Lamo, at (202) 357-6391.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01203-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-01-07
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/3/2018) regarding 28 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mml) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01203-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1203V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Special Master Corcoran
EDWIN M. MERCADO, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: December 3, 2018
*
v. *
* Decision by Proffer; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Administration (“SIRVA”); Diptheria-
* Tetanus-Acelluar Pertussis (“Tdap”)
Respondent. * Vaccine.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
John Hartman Ferguson, Medical Injury Law Center, Seattle, WA for Petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 6, 2017, Edwin Mercado2 filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.3 ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleged that he suffered a
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”)—specifically, left shoulder bursitis—
as a result of the improper administration of diptheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine
1 Although not formally designated for publication, this Decision will be posted on the United States Court of Federal
Claims website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the Decision
will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however,
the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically,
under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or
confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public
in its current form. Id.
2 At the time of filing, Petitioner’s legal name was Edwin M. Laird. He recently changed his last name to Mercado,
and I issued an order amending the case caption accordingly on November 26, 2018. ECF No. 25.
3 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:17-vv-01203-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/07/19 Page 2 of 5
in his left shoulder on January 16, 2015. Id. at 1. He alleged further that he experienced lumbar
pain as a sequela of his bursitis. Id.
On September 12, 2018, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, in which he indicated his
view that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for his bursitis claim, but not for his lumbar pain.
ECF No. 21 at 1. On October 1, 2018, I conducted a telephonic status conference with the parties,
during which Petitioner agreed to accept Respondent’s limited concession. I subsequently issued
a ruling finding entitlement (ECF No. 22, dated October 2, 2018) and an Order directing the parties
to confer regarding an appropriate damages award (ECF No. 23, dated October 2, 2018).
After two months of damages negotiations, Respondent filed a proffer proposing an award
of compensation. ECF No. 27. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude
that Respondent’s Proffer (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in
awarding damages on the terms set forth therein.
The Proffer proposes:
• A lump sum payment of $95,000.00, representing compensation for actual and
projected pain and suffering ($95,000.00), in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Proffer at 2. These amounts represent compensation for all elements of compensation under
Vaccine Act Section 15(a) to which Petitioner is entitled.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

CCaassee 11::1177--vvvv--0011220033--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2375 FFiilleedd 1021//0037//1189 PPaaggee 13 ooff 35
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
___________________________________
)
EDWIN M. MERCADO, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 17-1203V (ECF)
v. ) Special Master Corcoran
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH )
AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION1
I. Procedural History
On September 6, 2017, Edwin M. Laird (“petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Petition”) for
compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered from a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) and lumbar pain as a result of receiving a
“Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis” vaccination in his left shoulder on January 16, 2015. Petition at 1.
On September 12, 2018, respondent filed a Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report, and on October 2, 2018,
the Court found petitioner entitled to compensation, based on a theory of causation-in-fact, for
his left shoulder bursitis injury only.
II. Item of Compensation
The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, petitioner is entitled to actual
and projected pain and suffering. Therefore, respondent proffers that petitioner should be
1 This Proffer does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the parties intend to discuss after
the Damages Decision is issued.

CCaassee 11::1177--vvvv--0011220033--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2375 FFiilleedd 1021//0037//1189 PPaaggee 24 ooff 35
awarded actual and projected pain and suffering as provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-15(a)(4). Respondent proffers that the appropriate award for petitioner’s actual and
projected pain and suffering is $95,000.00. Petitioner agrees.
III. Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a lump sum payment as described below, and requests that the Special Master’s decision
and the Court’s judgment award the following:2
A lump sum payment of $95,000.00, representing compensation for actual and projected
pain and suffering ($95,000.00), in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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.

CCaassee 11::1177--vvvv--0011220033--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2375 FFiilleedd 1021//0037//1189 PPaaggee 35 ooff 35
s/ Robert P. Coleman III
ROBERT P. COLEMAN III
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-0274
Email: Robert.P.Coleman@usdoj.gov
DATED: December 3, 2018