VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01243
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01243
Petitioner: Basil McNeely
Filed: 2018-08-20
Decided: 2025-01-23
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2016-08-21
Condition: significant aggravation of cervical radiculopathy
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 78703

AI-assisted case summary:
Basil McNeely, a 60-year-old adult, received a Tdap vaccine on August 21, 2016. He alleged that this vaccine significantly aggravated his pre-existing cervical radiculopathy. His prior medical history included cervical disc disease and radiculopathy diagnosed in 2013, for which he received treatment and experienced relief. Following the Tdap vaccination, Mr. McNeely reported immediate pain at the injection site that worsened significantly by the next day, radiating down his left arm and into his hand, accompanied by neck stiffness and muscle spasms. He sought various treatments, including pain medication, muscle relaxants, chiropractic care, and injections. Medical records documented his ongoing symptoms and his attribution of the worsening condition to the vaccine. His treating neurologist, Dr. McGee, noted the arm pain as a potential reaction to the Tdap vaccine. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Tornatore, opined that the Tdap vaccine could cause muscle spasms that compress cervical nerve roots, aggravating pre-existing conditions like Mr. McNeely's. Respondent's expert, Dr. Callaghan, disagreed, arguing that the vaccine did not cause the aggravation and that Mr. McNeely's condition was likely due to degenerative changes. The court found that Mr. McNeely established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Tdap vaccination caused a significant aggravation of his cervical radiculopathy, satisfying the criteria for an off-Table injury. The case proceeded to damages, and the court awarded Mr. McNeely a total of $78,703.03 for pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Tdap vaccine on August 21, 2016, age 60, alleged significant aggravation of cervical radiculopathy/neck and arm symptoms. COMPENSATED. Entitlement and damages were resolved with an award recorded as $78,703 after proceedings addressing the vaccine's role in aggravating preexisting cervical pathology. Damages decision filed January 23, 2025. Later attorney-fee decision did not change the merits/damages decision date.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01243-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-07-15
Pages: 27
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/28/24) regarding 65 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (sh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 27
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: June 28, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BASIL MCNEELY, *
* Special Master Sanders
Petitioner, *
v. * No. 18-1243V
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Renee J. Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Jamica M. Littles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On August 20, 2018, Basil McNeely (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner later filed an amended petition on October 14,
2020. Petitioner alleged that the administration of the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine he received on August 21, 2016 caused significant aggravation of his preexisting
cervical radiculopathy.3 Am. Pet. at 2, ECF No. 48.
After carefully analyzing and weighing all of the evidence presented in this case in
accordance with the applicable legal standards,4 I find that Petitioner has met his legal burden.
1Because 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.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act,” “the Act,” or “the Program”). Hereafter, individual section references
will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
3 Cervical radiculopathy is “radiculopathy of cervical nerve roots, often with neck or shoulder pain;
compression of nerve roots is a common cause in this area.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary at
1547 (33rd ed. 2020) [hereinafter “Dorlands”].
4 While I have reviewed all of the information filed in this case, only those filings and records that are most
relevant to the decision will be discussed. Moriarty v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 844 F.3d 1322, 1328
1

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 27
Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence that the Tdap vaccine he received on August 21,
2016, caused significant aggravation of his cervical radiculopathy. Accordingly, Petitioner is
entitled to compensation.
I. Procedural History
The original petition filed on August 20, 2018, alleged that Petitioner suffered from a
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Tdap vaccination. Pet.
at 1, ECF No. 1. This case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”). ECF Nos. 4–5.
Petitioner filed sixteen exhibits on August 22, 2018, including vaccination and medical records.
See Petitioner’s Exhibits (“Pet’r’s Exs.”) 1–17, ECF Nos. 6–7. On October 29, 2018, Petitioner
filed additional medical records and a statement of completion. Pet’r’s Exs. 18–38, ECF Nos. 9–
12. An initial status conference was held on December 11, 2018. Min. Entry, docketed Dec. 13,
2018. Petitioner filed additional medical records and a second statement of completion on January
11, 2019. Pet’r’s Ex. 39, ECF No. 20-2; ECF No. 21. Petitioner filed an affidavit on August 21,
2019, and additional medical records on September 17, 2019. Pet’r’s Exs. 40–49, ECF Nos. 28–
29. On September 19, 2019, Petitioner filed a third statement of completion. ECF No. 30. Petitioner
filed additional exhibits on September 23, 2019. Pet’r’s Exs. 50–51, ECF No. 32. On October 16,
2019, Petitioner filed a consented motion to substitute his attorney, which was granted the next
day. ECF No. 33.
On January 21, 2020, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report in which he recommended
against compensating Petitioner for his alleged injury. See Respondent’s Report (“Resp’t’s
Report”), ECF No. 37. Respondent averred that Petitioner had not established that he suffered from
a Table SIRVA. Id. at 10–16. Alternatively, Petitioner alleges that the vaccine was the cause-in-
fact of his shoulder injury. Id.
On March 30, 2020, Petitioner filed an additional exhibit, a spreadsheet of past expenses.
Pet’r’s Ex. 52, ECF No. 39-1. On April 2, 2020, Respondent indicated that he was not interested
in pursuing settlement, and the case was reassigned to me on April 3, 2020. ECF Nos. 40–42.
Petitioner filed an expert report from Carlo Tornatore, M.D., accompanied by a curriculum
vitae (“CV”) and medical literature on October 12, 2020. Pet’r’s Ex. 53–56, ECF No. 47. Two
days later, Petitioner filed his amended petition, which alleged that the Tdap vaccine caused
significant aggravation of Petitioner’s preexisting cervical radiculopathy, rather than the
previously pled SIRVA. See Am. Pet. at 2. Petitioner filed insurance claim documents on
December 17, 2020. Pet’r’s Ex. 57-2, ECF No. 49. Respondent filed an expert report authored by
Brian C. Callaghan, M.D., M.S, along with Dr. Callaghan’s CV and medical literature on February
19, 2021. Resp’t’s Exs. A–B, ECF No. 51. On May 24, 2021, Petitioner filed a responsive expert
report from Dr. Tornatore with medical literature. Pet’r’s Exs. 58–59, ECF No. 55. Respondent
filed a responsive expert report from Dr. Callaghan on August 9, 2021. Resp’t’s Ex. C, ECF No.
56-1.
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We generally presume that a special master considered the relevant record evidence even
though he does not explicitly reference such evidence in his decision.”) (citation omitted); see also Paterek
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 527 F. App'x 875, 884 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Finding certain information not
relevant does not lead to—and likely undermines—the conclusion that it was not considered.”).
2

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 27
On November 9, 2022, the parties indicated via email that they would like to proceed with
a ruling on the record. Informal Comm., docketed Nov. 9, 2022. Petitioner filed a motion for a
ruling on the record on December 12, 2022. Pet’r’s Mot., ECF No. 61. Respondent filed a response
on January 9, 2023. Resp’t’s Resp., ECF. No. 62. Petitioner filed a reply on January 25, 2023.
Pet’r’s Reply, ECF No. 63. This matter is now ripe for consideration.
II. Summary of the Relevant Evidence
a. Medical Records
i. Pre-Vaccination History
Petitioner was 60 years old at the time of vaccination and his past medical history is
significant for lumbar disc disease,5 chronic headaches, low back pain, and mitral valve prolapse.6
Pet’r’s Ex. 23 at 14, ECF No. 9-7. On June 3, 2013, Petitioner saw rheumatologist Dr. Thomas
McGee at the IMC Diagnostic & Medical Clinic for pain in his upper left arm, which seemed to
“radiat[e] from his neck into his arm.” Pet’r’s Ex. 43 at 10–11, ECF No. 29-4. Petitioner also noted
“a little weakness in the left arm” and cramps in his feet and arms at times. Id. at 10. Petitioner
further reported “prior problems with his neck in the past.” Id. Upon physical examination, Dr.
McGee found “[Petitioner] does definitely have radicular pain in his left arm. He has a significantly
reduced biceps reflex on the left and triceps reflex on the left, normal on the right.” Id. Dr. McGee
further noted that Petitioner’s shoulders, elbows, and wrists were “okay” and that Petitioner had
“free range of the motion of [his] left shoulder.” Id. Dr. McGee diagnosed Petitioner with cervical
radiculopathy and lumbar disc disease. Id. Dr. McGee gave Petitioner an injection of “1-1/2 cc of
Kenalog,”7 a soft cervical collar, and a neck protocol to follow at home. Id. at 11. Petitioner was
advised to consider physical therapy and call if he did not feel better. Id. That same day, Petitioner
5 Lumbar disc disease is “caused by a change in the structure of the normal disk. Most of the time, disk
disease happens as a result of aging and the normal breakdown that occurs within the disk. Sometimes,
severe injury can cause a normal disk to herniate. Injury may also cause an already herniated disk to
worsen.” Johns Hopkins Medicine (Apr. 24, 2024, 4:00pm),
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/lumbar-disc-disease-herniated-
disc#:~:text=Lumbar%20disk%20disease%20is%20caused,already%20herniated%20disk%20to%20wors
en. Symptoms “vary depending on where the disk has herniated and what nerve root it is pushing on” but
can commonly include intermittent or continuous back pain, spasm of the back muscles, sciatica, muscle
weakness in the legs, numbness in the leg or foot, and decreased reflexes at the knee or ankle. Id.
6 Mitral valve prolapse is “redundancy or hooding of mitral valve leaflets so that they prolapse into the
left atrium, often causing mitral regurgitation.” Dorlands at 1502.
7 Kenalog is a “trademark for preparations of triamcinolone acetonide” which is “applied topically to the
skin or oral mucosa as an antiinflammatory, and administered by inhalation for the chronic treatment of
asthma, intranasally in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and other inflammatory nasal conditions, and by
intra-articular, intradermal, intralesional, intramuscular, intrabursal, or tendon sheath injection as an
antiinflammatory and immunosuppressant in a wide variety of disorders.” Dorlands at 966,1929.
3

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 27
underwent a left shoulder x-ray which revealed normal acromioclavicular8 and glenohumeral9
joints and no acute fracture or dislocation. Id. at 15. Petitioner also underwent a cervical spine
series x-ray, which revealed “[d]egenerative appearing changes worse at C5-C6 but some
spurring10 is seen at C6-C7 with mild neural foraminal narrowing11 worse on the left than right.”
Id. at 16.
In August 2013, Petitioner underwent a two-night sleep study at Springhill Medical Center.
Pet’r’s Ex. 36 at 10, ECF No. 11-2. A review of systems included arthralgias,12 back pain, muscle
weakness, and neck pain. Id. Dr. Lawrence Schoen diagnosed Petitioner with “obstructive sleep
apnea13 characterized by hypopneas”14 and “periodic limb movement disorder.”15 Id. at 15.
Petitioner was given instructions for a trial continuous positive airway pressure16 (“CPAP”)
machine at home. Id. at 18.
Between January 2014 and February 2016, Petitioner visited the University of South
Alabama Speech Pathology and Audiology clinic for sinus-related issues, specifically when using
his CPAP machine. Pet’r’s Ex. 35 at 11–14, ECF No. 10-10. Each visit, Petitioner was prescribed
various antibiotics and given steroid “injections of 8 [mg of Decadron17] and 160 [mg of Depo-
Medrol18].” Id. at 14, 16.
8 The acromioclavicular joint is “the synovial joint between the acromion of the scapula and the acromial
extremity of the clavicle.” Dorlands at 20, 959.
9 The glenohumeral joint is “the joint formed by the head of the humerus and the glenoid fossa of the
scapula” and also called the “shoulder.” Dorlands at 960.
10 A spur is “a projecting body, as from a bone.” Dorlands. At 1728.
11 Neural foraminal narrowing, also known as spinal stenosis, is “narrowing of the vertebral canal, nerve
root canals, or intervertebral foramina of the lumbar spine caused by encroachment of bone upon the space;
symptoms are caused by compression of the cauda equina and include pain, paresthesias, and neurogenic
claudication. The condition may be either congenital or due to spinal degeneration.” Dorlands at 1740.
12 Arthralgia is “pain in a joint.” Dorlands at 154.
13 Sleep apnea syndrome is “transient periods of cessation of breathing during sleep. It may result in
hypoxemia and vasoconstriction of pulmonary arterioles, producing pulmonary arterial hypertension.”
Dorlands at PAGE 1818.
14 Hypopnea is an “abnormal decrease in the depth and rate of breathing.” Dorlands at 893.
15 Periodic limb movement disorder, also called nocturnal myoclonus, is “myoclonic jerks of the limbs
occurring as a person is falling asleep or is asleep; in the latter case they may disrupt sleep.” Dorlands at
546, 1205.
16 Continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, is “a method of positive pressure ventilation used with
patients who are breathing spontaneously, in which pressure in the airway is maintained above the level of
atmospheric pressure throughout the respiratory cycle. The purpose is to keep the alveoli open at the end
of exhalation and thus increase oxygenation and reduce the work of breathing.” Dorlands at 422.
17 Decadron is a trademark name for “preparations of dexamethasone.” Dorlands at 468. Dexamethasone
is “a synthetic glucocorticoid, 25 times as potent as cortisol; used topically on the skin and conjunctiva as
an antiinflammatory and administered orally in replacement therapy for adrenocortical insufficiency, as an
antiinflammatory and immunosuppressant in a wide variety of disorders, and as an antiemetic in cancer
chemotherapy.” Id. at 497.
18 Depo-Medrol is a trademark name for “preparations of methylprednisolone acetate.” Dorlands at 486.
Methylprednisolone acetate is “the 21-acetate ester of methylprednisolone, administered topically as an
antiinflammatory, by intramuscular injection in replacement therapy for adrenocortical insufficiency, and
4

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 27
Between October 2014 and January 2016, Petitioner visited The Autonomic Disorders and
Mitral Valve Prolapse Center three times for follow-up appointments for his mitral valve prolapse.
Pet’r’s Ex. 20 at 3–5, ECF No. 9-4.
ii. Post -Vaccination Medical History
On August 21, 2016, Petitioner received a Tdap vaccine in his left shoulder at a Walmart
pharmacy in Mobile, Alabama. Pet’r’s Ex. 39 at 10–11. Five days later, on August 26, 2016,
Petitioner saw Dr. John Hinton, a neurologist and Petitioner’s longtime friend, for “trouble
thinking and concentrating.” Pet’r’s Ex. 23 at 14. Petitioner noted that he “had these kind of
problems in the past” and they improved with amphetamines and CPAP. Id. Petitioner reported
“spells of ‘spacing out[,]’ where he has a buzzing feeling between his eyes” which was worse in
the afternoon. Id. Petitioner also reported weight gain since he could not exercise due to back pain
and the inability to tolerate stimulants. Id. Petitioner also noted that he was compliant with CPAP.
Id. The review of systems was notable for malaise/fatigue, blurred vision, back pain, tingling,
headaches, nervousness/anxiety, and insomnia. Id. The physical exam showed full motor strength
in all extremities and normal tone. Id. Dr. Hinton’s primary diagnosis was obstructive sleep apnea
syndrome, with additional diagnoses of attention deficit disorder, memory loss, and hypersomnia19
with sleep apnea. Id. at 16. Dr. Hinton’s treatment plan included imaging and labs, a Zoloft20
prescription, weight loss, and a regular, graduated exercise program. Id.
Eighteen days post vaccination, on September 8, 2016, Petitioner returned to Dr. McGee
complaining “of a reaction to [Tdap].” Pet’r’s Ex. 43 at 7. Dr. McGee noted that Petitioner
“complain[ed] of left arm pain that ‘feels like there’s a spear stuck in,’ sa[id] that it hurt[] all the
way down to his left hand.” Id. Petitioner reported a history of a pinched nerve in his neck and
noted some stiffness in his neck, exacerbated by certain positions. Id. Dr. McGee’s physical
examination of the left shoulder showed “no swelling, no warmth, no tenderness to touch[]” as
well as “[a] little atrophy to deltoid.” Id. at 9. During the exam, Petitioner also “[c]omplain[ed] of
pain with [range of motion] of neck.” Id. Petitioner was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy and
lumbar disc disease. Id. Dr. McGee noted that Petitioner’s arm pain was a “[r]eaction to [Tdap].
Possibly referred pain from neck, no induration.” Id. Dr. McGee prescribed 200mg of Celebrex21
for the pain. Id. He also prescribed 2 mg of Zanaflex,22 a muscle relaxant, for Petitioner’s lumbar
disc disease. Id. Petitioner was advised to follow up in six months, or earlier if needed. Id.
by intra-articular, intramuscular, intralesional, or soft-tissue injection as an antiinflammatory and
immunosuppressant in a wide variety of disorders.” Id. at 1137.
19 Hypersomnia is “excessive sleeping or sleepiness.” Dorlands at 885.
20 Zoloft is a trademark name for “preparations of sertraline hydrochloride.” Dorlands at 2061. Sertraline
hydrochloride is “a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, used to treat depressive, obsessive-compulsive,
and panic disorders; administered orally.” Id. ay 1671.
21 Celebrex is a trademark name “for a preparation of celecoxib.” Dorlands at 307. Celecoxib is “a
nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug of the COX-2 inhibitors group, used for symptomatic treatment of
osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis; administered orally.” Id.
22 Zanaflex is a trademark name for a “preparation of tizanidine hydrochloride.” Dorlands at 2060.
Tizanidine hydrochloride is “an α2-adrenergic agonist used as a short-acting agent to manage the increased
muscle tone associated with spasticity, as that related to multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury;
administered orally.” Id. at 1903.
5

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 6 of 27
On September 11, 2016, Petitioner presented to Greater Mobile Urgent Care for complaints
of left arm pain and muscle spasms of the left upper back. Pet’r’s Ex. 2 at 6–10, ECF No. 6-3.
Petitioner reported that the Celebrex and muscle relaxer were not working. Id. at 7. The clinical
impression was “left shoulder pain/left upper arm pain, muscle spasm left upper back.” Id. at 6.
Petitioner received a Kenalog injection and was advised to follow up with Dr. McGee if he did not
feel better. Id.
On September 21, 2016, Petitioner reported to his chiropractor, Dr. Gregory Kuhlman, at
Family Chiropractic and Health Center, P.C. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 4, ECF No. 6-5. Petitioner reported
“constant severe pain in the neck” and an “insidious onset about a month ago of moderately severe
numb sensations and tingling sensations radiating to the left arm, left forearm and left hand.” Id.
Petitioner also noted that his symptoms began after receiving a vaccine in his left arm and that
there was “constant moderately severe stiffness in his neck and left shoulder along with some
weakness in his left hand.” Id. Dr. Kuhlman diagnosed Petitioner with cervicalgia,23 spasm of
muscle, cervicobrachial syndrome24 (diffuse), and pain in joint involving shoulder region. Id.
Petitioner received ice therapy to the cervical spine, interferential therapy25 in the cervical spine
and upper thoracic spine, and neck adjustment. Id. Dr. Kuhlman instructed Petitioner to use ice at
home. Id.
The next day, on September 22, 2016, Petitioner followed up with neurologist Dr. Hinton
for “pain down left arm to thumb” which “started with [Tdap] shot.” Pet’r’s Ex. 23 at 11. Petitioner
reported that the pain was better following chiropractic treatment but was “now worse again.” Id.
Dr. Hinton diagnosed Petitioner with cervical radiculopathy at C6, memory loss, obstructive sleep
apnea syndrome, attention deficit disorder, and hypersomnia with sleep apnea. Id. at 13. Petitioner
was prescribed a steroid, Medrol,26 and imaging was ordered. Id. Weight loss and a regular exercise
program were encouraged. Id. That same day, an MRI of the cervical spine found spondylosis27 at
C5-6 and C6-7 with bilateral foraminal stenosis.28 Pet’r’s Ex. 6 at 6–7, ECF No. 6-7. This imaging
was limited to only T2 sagittal sequences because Petitioner was in pain and could not complete
the full session. Id. at 7.
23 Cervicalgia is “neck pain.” Cleveland Clinic (Apr. 24, 2024, 4:32pm),
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/symptoms/21179-neck-pain.
24 Cervicobrachial syndrome, also known as brachial plexopathy, is “any neuropathy of the brachial
plexus.” Dorlands at 1440, 1794.
25 Interferential therapy is a therapy that utilizes “the production of low frequency current in the body tissue
by the simultaneous application of two different medium frequency currents.” Physiopedia (Apr. 24, 2024,
4:38pm), https://www.physio-pedia.com/Interferential_Therapy.
26 Medrol is a trademark name “for preparations of methylprednisolone.” Dorlands at 1105.
Methylprednisolone is “a synthetic glucocorticoid derived from progesterone, used in replacement therapy
for adrenocortical insufficiency and as an antiinflammatory and immunosuppressant in a wide variety of
disorders; administered orally.” Id. at 1137.
27 Spondylosis is “1. ankylosis of a vertebral joint. 2. degenerative spinal changes due to osteoarthritis.”
Dorlands at 1725.
28 Foraminal stenosis “is a condition that happens when narrowing in parts of your spine causes compression
of your spinal nerves. Most cases don’t cause symptoms, even with severe narrowing. However, when there
are symptoms, pain and nerve-related issues can happen.” Cleveland Clinic (Apr. 24, 2024, 4:43pm),
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24856-foraminal-stenosis.
6

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 7 of 27
Petitioner underwent an electromyogram and nerve conduction study (“EMG/NCS”) on
September 30, 2016. Pet’r’s Ex. 10 at 31–32, ECF No. 7-2. The study revealed “[l]eft C7
radiculopathy” and normal bilateral upper extremities. Id. at 32.
On September 30, 2016, Petitioner returned to Dr. Hinton for a follow-up. Pet’r’s Ex. 23
at 8–10. Dr. Hinton noted that Petitioner’s EMG/NCS revealed C7 radiculopathy. Id. at 8. Dr.
Hinton also noted that Petitioner “[h]ad trouble tolerating MRI” and that the Medrol helped with
his pain. Id. Dr. Hinton diagnosed Petitioner with neck and cervical radicular pain. Id. at 10.
Further imaging was recommended, along with continued weight loss and exercise. Id. Petitioner
returned for a follow-up for neck pain on October 21, 2016, this time seeing nurse practitioner
Tami Dunne. Id. at 5. Petitioner also complained of migraines and reported numbness and
weakness in his left arm. Id. Petitioner received refills for Zanaflex, Tenormin,29 and Mobic,30 and
was encouraged to lose weight and exercise. Id. at 7.
Petitioner saw Dr. Khulman for chiropractic treatment on October 3, 2016, October 5,
2016, October 7, 2016, and October 14, 2016. Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 10–13. The treatments included
inferential therapy to the neck, cervical spine, and upper thoracic areas, cryotherapy,31 chiropractic
adjustment to the neck and spine, ice and cold therapy to the cervical spine, deep muscle massage,
and trigger point therapy. Id.
On January 23, 2017, Petitioner saw Dr. Paula Moore at the Dysautonomia MVP Center
for complaints of tachycardia,32 sleep apnea, hyperlipidemia, shortness of breath, depression, and
migraines. Pet’r’s Ex. 20 at 6. The history of present illness states that Petitioner “had a [Tdap]
immunization back in August and he suddenly developed pain in his arm where he received the
immunization.” Id. Petitioner reported that he had seen a neurologist, had undergone a nerve
conduction study, and had received a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy.33 Id. Petitioner also noted
that he had been on gabapentin34 and it had helped, though he still had some pain in the left arm
“but it [was] much better.” Id. Petitioner further complained of a mild and non-exertional tightness
in his chest on a fairly regular basis, and he attributed this to the immunization as well. Id.
Additionally, Petitioner reported experiencing tachycardia and shortness of breath when he was
exerting, which was usually relieved with rest. Id. A physical exam showed normal muscle tone,
strength, and motor and sensory functions. Id. Dr. Moore diagnosed Petitioner with shortness of
breath, tachycardia, obstructive sleep apnea, polyneuropathy, and obesity. Id. at 7. Dr. Moore also
29 Tenormin is a trademark name “for preparations of atenolol.” Dorlands at 1853. Atenolol is “a
cardioselective β1-adrenergic blocking agent used in the treatment of hypertension and chronic angina
pectoris and the prophylaxis and treatment of myocardial infarction and cardiac arrhythmias; administered
orally or intravenously.” Id. at 169.
30 Mobic is a trademark name for “a preparation of meloxicam.” Dorlands at 1154. Meloxicam is “a
nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug used in the treatment of osteoarthritis; administered orally.” Id. at 1111.
31 Cryotherapy is “the therapeutic use of cold.” Dorlands at 433.
32 Tachycardia is “excessive rapidity in the action of the heart.” Dorland’s at 1836.
33 Peripheral neuropathy, also known as poly neuropathy, is “neuropathy of several peripheral nerves
simultaneously.” Dorland’s at 1252, 1468.
34 Gabapentin is “an anticonvulsant that is a structural analogue of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), used as
adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial seizures and the management of postherpetic neuralgia;
administered orally.” Dorland’s at 745.
7

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 8 of 27
ordered an electrocardiogram (“EKG”) for Petitioner’s shortness of breath and counseled
Petitioner on exercise. Id.
Petitioner presented to Dr. William Trent at the Mobile Infirmary Medical Center for a
cervical epidural steroid injection35 on July 14, 2017. Pet’r’s Ex. 5 at 49, ECF No. 6-6. The
diagnosis was cervical radiculitis which resulted in “pain not controlled by other means.” Id. The
injection of Depo-Medrol was inserted at the C6-7 level. Id.
On January 15, 2018, Petitioner returned to Dr. Moore for a follow-up visit regarding
fatigue, weight gain, palpitations, and tachycardia. Pet’r’s Ex. 20 at 9. Petitioner reported that he
was no longer taking gabapentin for nerve damage in his arms because it “was not working well
for him.” Id. Petitioner “continue[ed] to have paresthesias36 and soreness in his left arm, as well as
some issues with his right hand.” Id. Petitioner also reported the most relief with epidural block
treatments. Id.
Petitioner saw neurosurgeon Dr. Troy Middleton at the Coastal Neurological Institute on
February 19, 2018, for an initial evaluation of neck, arm, and shoulder pain. Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 5, ECF
No. 6-4. Petitioner specifically reported that he experienced numbness in his hands and arms, with
the left side being worse. Id. Petitioner reported that his past treatment included steroids, epidural
injections, and chiropractor treatment. Id. The review of systems showed muscle cramps, joint and
back pain, muscle weakness and aching, loss of strength, poor balance, disturbances in
coordination, numbness, and tingling. Id. at 6. Dr. Middleton diagnosed Petitioner with cervicalgia
and recommended imaging. Id. at 7. On February 28, 2018, Petitioner had a follow-up to review
the results of his MRI, which revealed moderate spondylosis at C5-7 with foraminal stenosis. Id.
at 9–12.
On May 8, 2018, Petitioner presented to orthopedist Dr. Stephen Cope at The Orthopedic
Group for “left arm pain.” Pet’r’s Ex. 10 at 9. Petitioner reported that he had a shot in his left
shoulder in August of 2016 and experienced significant pain that had worsened with time. Id.
Petitioner described his left arm as “somewhat weak.” Id. Petitioner listed the various treatments
he had sought to no avail. Id. Dr. Cope informed Petitioner that he would like to review the records
from Dr. Hinton and Dr. Middleton and advised that he might refer Petitioner to a spine surgeon
for an opinion. Id. at 10. Petitioner returned on May 14, 2018 and saw Dr. Clinton Howard. Id. at
7. Dr. Howard’s assessment was “left upper extremity weakness in grip as well as elbow flexion
and extension with MRI showing moderate stenosis of the cervical spine without significant
cervical neck pain.” Id. Petitioner was referred to physical therapy and given a Medrol Dosepak.
Id.
Petitioner began physical therapy at Hall Therapy Services on May 17, 2018. Pet’r’s Ex. 8
at 55, ECF No. 6-9. The assessment included “painful motion, decreased [range of motion],
35 Cervical epidural steroid injection is used “as a temporary pain relief option for certain causes of chronic
neck pain” and issued as an injection of “anti-inflammatory medication into the epidural space around [the]
spinal nerves.” Cleveland Clinic (Apr. 24, 2024 at 4:54pm),
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22293-cervical-epidural-steroid-injection.
36 Paresthesia is “an abnormal touch sensation, such as burning, prickling, or formication, often in the
absence of an external stimulus.” Dorland’s at 1362.
8

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 9 of 27
weakness, muscle tightness, radicular symptoms, spasm, and decreased postural awareness that is
limiting his daily function.” Id. at 57. The plan included physical therapy two to three times a week
for four weeks. Id. at 58. By Petitioner’s last physical therapy session on June 18, 2018, the
assessment stated:
[I]mproved [range of motion] of the cervical spine and shoulder as increased
strength in the C spine. [Petitioner] feels his quality of life has improved due to
better [range of motion] but he does not feel he has had any change of pain in the
shoulder/[upper extremity]. [Petitioner] reports absolutely no change in
pain/discomfort in the [upper extremity] and it still hurts to touch but the pain is no
longer considered constant. Goals have been addressed but have not been met.
Id. at 9. Petitioner was advised to follow up with his doctor for further recommendations. Id.
On July 22, 2019, Petitioner had a yearly appointment with nurse practitioner Meleah Yates
at the Dysautonomia MVP Center. Pet’r’s Ex. 46 at 8, ECF No. 29-7. Petitioner reported that he
was still experiencing numbness, tingling, and pain in his left arm since his vaccination. Id. at 9.
Petitioner also noted that “the pain . . . [was] tolerable without med[ication].” Id. Ms. Yates noted
that the vaccination “was administered in the wrong place and [Petitioner] has had trouble since
then.” Id. Ms. Yates also recorded that Petitioner has completed physical therapy. Id.
b. Petitioner’s Affidavit
Petitioner filed an affidavit, which was executed on July 26, 2019. Pet’r’s Ex. 40 at 7, ECF
No. 28-2. Petitioner recalled that he was planning to get the Tdap vaccination in preparation for
the birth of a grandchild. Id. ¶ 1. Petitioner recalled shopping at Walmart on August 21, 2016 when
he noticed that the pharmacy offered vaccinations, and he signed up to receive his Tdap
vaccination. Id. ¶ 2. Petitioner stated that the administering professional “began by putting some
sort of bandage in place on [Petitioner’s] left arm before giving the injection.” Id. ¶ 3. When
Petitioner questioned “putting the needle through a bandage,” the administering professional
stated, “[t]his is the way we do it at Walmart to protect you from germs in the store.” Id. Petitioner
recalled that the vaccination “hurt a lot more than other vaccinations [he] ha[d] taken. Tetanus
shots do hurt, but this REALLY hurt as [he] walked out of the store.” Id. Petitioner further recalled
returning home, laying down, and resting because he “did not feel like doing anything with [his]
arm so uncomfortable.” Id. ¶ 4. Petitioner stated that by the next morning, his “left arm was
extremely painful.” Id. Petitioner recalled that he took some ibuprofen and attempted exercising
the arm, “hoping to work the discomfort out.” Id.
Over the course of the next week, Petitioner recalled having “tense and hard” shoulder
muscles such that “it was difficult to work or rest.” Id. ¶ 5. Petitioner stated that “it did not get
better with time like a shot usually does[.]” Id. On August 28, 2017, Petitioner and his wife
returned to Walmart to advise of the problem because he “did not want it to happen to others,
especially young children, and [he] thought the shot was given wrong somehow.” Id. The store
manager spoke to the pharmacy staff and determined that the administrating professional was a
“trainee from another store.” Id. The store manager “then apologized.” Id. That day, Petitioner
9

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 10 of 27
bought topical medicines and pain patches, but “the pain seemed to spread down [his] arm and into
[his] shoulder and side.” Id. ¶ 6.
Petitioner recalled that, on September 8, 2016, he saw his internist, Dr. McGee, who gave
him “a muscle relaxer and Celebrex.” Id. Petitioner attended an appointment at Massage Envy on
September 9, 2016, based off the recommendation of a coworker. Id. ¶ 7. Petitioner added that
“[t]he massage was difficult for [him], as [he] had to keep putting the arm in different positions as
it stiffened,” but that he received “some relief” from the massage that day. Id. However, Petitioner
stated that the relief “did not last very long” and that he felt stiff by the next morning. Id.
By September 10, 2016, Petitioner stated that he was in “too much pain to lay down or
sleep[,]” and he visited an urgent care the next day to “try a corticosteroid shot, hoping for some
relief.” Id. ¶ 8. Petitioner received the injection in his hip, but “it did not make much difference.”
Id. Petitioner added that he could not sleep, or lay down, on both days because of the intensity of
the pain. Id. By September 12, 2016, Petitioner was “still sore and stiff, and only able to rest by
leaning against a pile of pillows after using the shower massage[,]” and he called Dr. Hinton, his
neurologist. Id. ¶ 9. Petitioner stated that Dr. Hinton doubled his Celebrex dosage on September
14, 2016. Id. Petitioned recalled calling Dr. McGee at night “describing pain and difficulty
walking any distance[.]” Id. ¶ 10. Petitioner was advised to stop the muscle relaxer and to wear a
cervical collar when driving, but this did not bring any relief. Id.
Petitioner stated that he saw Dr. Kuhlman at Family Chiropractic on September 21, 2016,
based on a friend’s recommendation. Id. ¶ 11. Petitioner recalled that he had to stop and stretch
twice during the twenty-minute drive to the office because he was in so much pain. Id. During the
appointment, Petitioner received nerve stimulation and adjustment, as well as the recommendation
to see a neurologist to prescribe a Medrol pack. Id. The next day, Petitioner saw Dr. Hinton and
received the Medrol prescription which “helped more than anything else had[.]” Id. ¶ 12. Petitioner
recalled “some relief” from four visits to Dr. Kuhlman in September 2016, but that “it was short
lived.” Id. Petitioner stated that his wife “massaged [his] arm and shoulder with an electric back
massager (20-30 minutes each session), so that [he] would have enough relief from the pain to go
to work and so [he] could sleep at night.” Id.
Petitioner’s granddaughter was born on September 25, 2016, and Petitioner recalled that
he could not travel to Texas to see her as “he could barely make the fifteen-minute commute to
downtown to work, so . . . [it] was out of the question.” Id. ¶ 13. Further, “[i]t was a heartbreak
because that was the reason for [Petitioner] to get the shot in the first place. [He] was sad, mad,
disappointed, broken hearted[,] and sore.” Id.
Petitioner recalled a visit to Dr. Hinton on September 30, 2016 for a nerve test that was
“intensely uncomfortable[.]” Id. ¶ 14. Petitioner noted that his “left arm continued to throb at the
injection area if anyone touched it” and “[t]hat pain continues to this day.” Id. Petitioner stated that
he visited the chiropractor three more times in October 2016 until Dr. Kuhlman advised “he could
not do any more for [Petitioner].” Id. ¶ 15. Petitioner also recalled visits with Dr. Hinton on
October 21, 2016, November 3, 2016, and December 22, 2016, at which point Petitioner “was
taking a lot of meds to control pain, including [gabapentin], hydrocodone, [Mobic], and muscle
relaxers” which brought “some relief” but also made Petitioner “sleepy, probably due to the 2400
10

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 11 of 27
mg dosage of [gabapentin].” Id. Petitioner stated that he stopped the hydrocodone “after a week
because it became ineffective” and soon also stopped the muscle relaxers and meloxicam, but
continued with the gabapentin because it allowed him “to work a little.” Id. Petitioner noted that
his “time at work was very difficult and ineffective.” Id.
Petitioner was scheduled for a neck epidural on March 8, 2017, but cancelled the
appointment to visit his newly born grandchild in Virginia. Id. ¶ 16. Petitioner noted that he had
to take the train because he could not drive that distance in his condition. Id. Petitioner later
received the neck epidural on July 14, 2017, and he indicated that it numbed his neck but “did not
make [his] arm well.” Id. ¶ 17. Petitioner received a second neck epidural on August 21, 2017 with
“[n]ot much difference [] noticed, and the arm did not change.” Id.
Petitioner noted that he has “weakness in [his] left arm when doing yard work,” limiting
his ability to “mow, trim, and rake.” Id. ¶ 18. Petitioner “can do little with that arm because it gets
sore and tired quickly.” Id.
Petitioner recalled seeing Dr. Middleton, a neurosurgeon, who evaluated Petitioner’s neck
and past MRIs. Id. ¶ 19. Dr. Middleton advised Petitioner of “some narrowing” in the neck, “but
not enough to worry about.” Id. Further, Dr. Middleton did not recommend an epidural and stated
that the arm pain is not consistent with a problem stemming from the neck. Id.
Petitioner stated that he next saw Dr. Steven Cope and Dr. Clint Howard, who
recommended physical therapy. Id. ¶ 20. Petitioner began physical therapy where he “was
stretched and pulled and did neck exercises[,]” but the “work did not give [him] the arm relief that
was hoped for.” Id. ¶ 21. Petitioner added that after “several sessions and lots of home exercises,
there was no progress and the therapist had nothing new to try.” Id. Petitioner ceased therapy and
returned to Dr. Howard on June 19, 2018, who recommended a third neck epidural with Dr. Trent.
Id. ¶ 22.
Between June and July 2018, Petitioner learned that he required surgery to remove a
bladder cancer tumor. Id. ¶ 24. While going through pre-operation requirements, Petitioner stated
that he spoke with the “head surgical nurse” and inquired about his left arm pain. Id. ¶ 25. Petitioner
added that the nurse “asked about the location of the shot, indicating that injecting it in the wrong
place could really hurt someone. She was also shocked to hear that the injection was given through
the bandage . . . [and] said there was no reason for that.” Id. Petitioner cancelled the third neck
epidural because of the bladder surgery. Id. ¶ 26. Petitioner noted that he did not reschedule the
epidural because Dr. Middleton advised against it since the risk outweighed the benefits, especially
considering that it didn’t help the arm pain in the past. Id.
Petitioner concluded the affidavit with a summary of his experience. Id. ¶¶ 27–29.
Petitioner stated that he has “tried everything the doctors prescribed and ha[s] spent a lot of time
off work trying to get well from this pain that started immediately with an injection of [the]
vaccine.” Id. ¶ 27. Petitioner added that he has incurred significant debt due to the cost of the
treatments and medicines, as well as lower sales from his small business due to his pain. Id.
Petitioner noted that the gabapentin, which helped with the pain, also caused drowsiness and
weight gain to the point where Petitioner stopped taking it in December of 2017 “to be able to be
11

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 12 of 27
clear-headed enough to work and not lose my business.” Id. ¶ 28. However, not taking it “leaves
[him] with even more pain.” Id. Petitioner recalled a gentle pat on the arm from his 85-year-old
mother after his surgery that “brought tears to [his] eyes from the arm pain.” Id. Petitioner
remarked that “there seems to be no solution” to his arm pain. Id. ¶ 29.
c. Expert Review
i. Expert Backgrounds
1. Petitioner’s Expert, Carlo Tornatore, M.D.
Dr. Tornatore received his medical degree from Georgetown University School of
Medicine in 1986. Pet’r’s Ex. 54 at 3, ECF No. 47-3. Dr. Tornatore then completed an internship
in internal medicine at Providence Hospital and residency in neurology at Georgetown University
Hospital. Id. Next, Dr. Tornatore completed a fellowship in molecular virology at the National
Institutes of Health. Id.
Presently, Dr. Tornatore is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Neurology at
Georgetown University Medical Center (“GUMC”) and Chairman and Neurologist-in-Chief of the
Department of Neurology at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital. Pet’r’s Ex. 53 at 1, ECF
No. 47-2. At GUMC, Dr. Tornatore oversees “the research endeavors of 15 laboratories, consisting
of 19 Principal Investigators and over 90 post-doctoral fellows, doctoral candidates, graduate
students and lab technicians.” Id. The labs focus on “various aspects of the neuroscience, including
neuroplasticity, neuroimaging, cognitive neuroscience and language disorders[.]” Id. Dr.
Tornatore also oversees over sixty clinical trials at the GUMC Department of Neurology, including
fifteen of which he is the principal investigator. Id. At Medstar Georgetown University Hospital,
Dr. Tornatore oversees the clinical endeavors of sixty-five neurologists at five hospitals. Id.
Dr. Tornatore also serves as the executive director of the Multiple Sclerosis (“MS”) Patient
Centered Specialty Home with over 3,000 patients. Id. In addition to MS patients, the clinic also
cares for patients with various other inflammatory conditions of the brain and spinal cord and
various inflammatory disorders of the peripheral nervous system. Id. at 2.
2. Respondent’s Expert, Brian Callaghan, M.D., M.S.
Dr. Callaghan received his medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania Medical
Center in 2004. Resp’t’s Ex. B at 1, ECF No. 51-4. Dr. Callaghan then completed an internship in
preliminary medicine in 2005 and a neurology residency in 2008 at the University of Pennsylvania
Medical Center. Id. Dr. Callaghan also completed two fellowships, the first in 2009 with a
neuromuscular focus at the University of Michigan Health System and the second in 2016 with a
policy focus at the University of Michigan. Id.
Dr. Callaghan is an Associate Professor of Neurology at the University of Michigan and a
neuromuscular specialist with a primary interest in patients with neuropathy, such as cervical
radiculopathy. Resp’t’s Ex. A at 1, ECF No. 51-1. Dr. Callaghan is certified by both the American
Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and the American Board of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Id.
12

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 13 of 27
Additionally, Dr. Callaghan has published more than 100 articles, focusing on “the appropriate
diagnostic evaluation and treatment of peripheral neuropathy, such as cervical radiculopathy.” Id.
Dr. Callaghan estimated that he has seen more than 200 patients with cervical radiculopathy. Id.
ii. Expert Reports
1. Dr. Tornatore’s Expert Report
Petitioner filed Dr. Tornatore’s expert report on October 12, 2020. Pet’r’s Ex. 53 at 1. Dr.
Tornatore opined that Petitioner’s Tdap vaccination on August 21, 2016 “resulted in significant
aggravation of his underlying cervical degenerative disc disease[.]” Id. at 14.
Dr. Tornatore noted that Petitioner had only one pre-vaccination medical visit for cervical
radiculopathy, in 2013, but had “multiple visits for ongoing symptoms of cervical pain with
radicular symptoms in the left arm” post vaccination. Id. at 9. Specifically, Dr. Tornatore pointed
to an EMG study five weeks post vaccination that showed “acute injury to the left C7 nerve root”
and MRI imaging “consistent with degenerative disc disease at the C7 nerve root with
encroachment upon the foramina through which the C7 nerve root exits.” Id. at 10. Dr. Tornatore
opined, in agreement with Petitioner’s treating physicians, that “the underlying cause of
[Petitioner’s] arm and neck symptoms was acute structural compression of the C7 nerve root,”
reflecting “a significant aggravation of his underlying cervical radiculopathy that had been
quiescent for 3 years.” Id. Dr. Tornatore added that the significant aggravation occurred with
“striking temporal association following the administration of a Tdap vaccination.” Id. Dr.
Tornatore summarized his conclusion by stating, “[i]t is my opinion that the vaccination did indeed
result in significant aggravation of [Petitioner’s] radiculopathy based on accepted and probable
biological principles that occurred in a logical sequence of cause and effect in a striking temporal
relationship, as reflected by the medical records in this case.” Id.
Dr. Tornatore focused on two particular topics in this case: (1) the structural basis for
cervical radiculopathy and (2) whether a Tdap vaccination can cause significant aggravation of a
cervical radiculopathy, and if so, how. Id. For the first topic, Dr. Tornatore included various images
showing the anatomy of the cervical spine. Id. at 11–13. Dr. Tornatore explained the following:
Nerve roots [or radicles] exit the spinal cord through bony windows or neural
foramina as they enter the neck and then progress down the arms. The neural
foramina are formed by the junction of the pedicles37 of adjacent vertebral bodies
and the intervening intervertebral disc . . . the aging process results in bony
protuberances or osteophytes38 that encroach upon the neural foramina and
potentially impinge on the nerve root. Likewise, degenerative changes in the
intervertebral discs can cause further stenosis of the foramina.
37 A pedicle is “a footlike, stemlike, or narrow basal part or structure, such as the stalk by which a nonsessile
tumor is attached to normal tissue, or the narrow strip of flap tissue through which it receives its blood
supply.” Dorland’s at 1380.
38 An osteophyte is “a bony excrescence or osseous outgrowth.” Dorland’s at 1329.
13

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 14 of 27
Id. at 11. Dr. Tornatore opined that Petitioner had degenerative spine changes that placed him “at
risk for developing acute radiculopathy.” Id. This included one episode in 2013, followed by three
years without symptoms. Id.
Dr. Tornatore continued that “the cervical vertebral bodies are surrounded by a large
number of muscles[,]” which will “pull the vertebral bodies closer to one another causing further
narrowing of the neural foramina and impingement of the nerve root” if the muscles spasm. Id. at
12. This impingement of a nerve root due to cervical spasm will “result in sensory symptoms,
including pain, in characteristic dermatomal patterns[.]” Id. at 13. Dr. Tornatore opined that an
impingement at C7, as Petitioner had, “can result in symptoms which start in the neck and extend
down the arm.” Id. Dr. Tornatore also noted “that the area which [Petitioner] received his Tdap
vaccination was in the C7 dermatome39 of the deltoid.” Id.
Dr. Tornatore further opined that Petitioner’s EMG study revealed “fibrillation potentials
and positive waves, findings that are consistent with an acute injury.” Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 55,
ECF No. 47-4).40 Dr. Tornatore added that “it takes between 1 and 4 weeks after a nerve injury
before they can be identified.” Id. Further, Dr. Tornatore opined that “the lack of polyphasic waves
on [Petitioner’s] EMG also speak[s] to an acute injury.” Id. Dr. Tornatore added that “[Petitioner]
had pre-existing bony pathology of the cervical spine which was made acutely worse following
the [Tdap] vaccination as evidenced by his EMG study which was consistent with acute nerve root
compression at the left C7 level.” Id.
Next, Dr. Tornatore turned to the second topic, whether the Tdap vaccination could cause
a significant aggravation of a cervical radiculopathy. Id. at 13. Dr. Tornatore cited to the
“informational insert” for Adacel, one version of the Tdap vaccine. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 56, ECF
No. 47-5). The insert discussed a “Serious Adverse Event” (“SAE”) report for “one diagnosis of
nerve compression in neck and left arm” due to the vaccine. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 56 at 11). The
insert also reported that 65.7% of adults ages 18-64 experienced injection site pain and 21.9% of
adults ages 18-64 experienced body ache or muscle weakness after vaccination. Id. (citing Pet’r’s
Ex. 56 at 2). Dr. Tornatore offered “a highly probably explanation” of “[Tdap]-induced cervical
radiculopathy” that occurred in the above SAE: that “if a vaccination resulted in muscle spasm of
the shoulder and cervical muscles in someone who already had underlying cervical disc disease
and neural foraminal stenosis, cervical nerve roots would be compressed resulting in pain and
sensory changes in dermatomal distribution.” Id. at 14.
Further, Dr. Tornatore noted that the trapezius muscle is “[o]ne of the largest and most
common muscles of the cervical spine that can result in cervical spasm[.]” Id. The trapezius “is in
very close association with the deltoid, the muscle in which [Petitioner] received his vaccination.”
Id. Dr. Tornatore opined that “[a]ny pain in the deltoid can lead to spasm of the adjacent trapezius
with resulting neck pain, a phenomena [Dr. Tornatore] has seen frequently in [his] practice over
the past 3 decades.” Id. Dr. Tornatore noted that Petitioner’s “medical records had frequent
references to deltoid pain at the site of vaccination, with associated trapezial spasm.” Id.
39 The dermatome is “the area of skin supplied with afferent nerve fibers by a single spinal nerve.”
Dorland’s at 491. Afferent nerve fibers are “nerve fibers that convey sensory impulses from the periphery
to the central nervous system[.]” Id. at 1227.
40 J. Feinberg, EMG: Myths and Facts, 2:1 Hospital for Special Surgery, 19–21 (2006).
14

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 15 of 27
2. Dr. Callaghan’s Expert Report
Respondent filed Dr. Callaghan’s expert report on February 19, 2021. Resp’t’s Ex. A at 1.
Dr. Callaghan first noted that Petitioner received a diagnosis of “cervical disc disease causing a
cervical radiculopathy” by multiple providers. Id. at 3. Then, Dr. Callaghan described cervical
radiculopathy as a “common condition with an incidence of 83–179 per 100,000 person years”41
with a typical causation of “compression of the nerve roots in the neck by arthritic changes and/or
disc herniation[.]” Id. Dr. Callaghan added that while most cases “can be diagnosed based upon
clinical history alone, [] MRI is the best imaging test to determine whether structural changes are
consistent with a patient’s symptoms[.]” Id. at 3–4.
Dr. Callaghan agreed with Dr. Tornatore that “left C7 cervical radiculopathy is the correct
diagnosis[,]” but he disagreed that “the TDAP vaccination exacerbated [Petitioner’s] pre-existing
left C7 radiculopathy.” Id. at 4. Next, Dr. Callaghan outlined four critiques of Dr. Tornatore’s
opinion that the Tdap vaccination significantly aggravated Petitioner’s radiculopathy.
First, Dr. Callaghan responded to Dr. Tornatore’s point regarding the single SAE involving
nerve compression in neck and left arm in a clinical trial for Tdap vaccinations. Id. Dr. Callaghan
opined that because there was only one case of nerve compression in the study, it is not statistically
significant. Id. Further, Dr. Callaghan noted that “[r]are SAEs, such as this one, are useful to flag
areas for future study, but they only suggest a proximal temporal relationship between TDAP
vaccination nerve compression in the neck and left arm.” Id. He explained that a “proximate
temporal relationship alone is insufficient to show causation.” Id. Dr. Callaghan also critiqued Dr.
Tornatore’s reliance on the SAE for a lack of details such that one cannot determine the patient’s
level of cervical radiculopathy. Id.
Second, Dr. Callaghan rebutted Dr. Tornatore’s evaluation of the temporal association
between the Tdap vaccination and Petitioner’s cervical radiculopathy. Id. Instead, Dr. Callaghan
noted that Petitioner had cervical radiculopathy for years, as documented by medical records in
2013 and a cervical x-ray. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 53 at 9). Dr. Callaghan also stated that Petitioner
did not mention the alleged post-vaccination symptoms to his neurologist at an appointment five
days after the vaccination. Id.
Third, Dr. Callaghan discussed Dr. Tornatore’s hypothesis “that muscle spasms will pull
the vertebral bodies closer in the neck causing narrowing of the neuroforamin and that the vaccine
caused [these] muscle spasm[s].” Id. Dr. Callaghan asserted that Dr. Tornatore provided no data
or other scientific support for this claim. Id.
Fourth, Dr. Callaghan asserted that “there are no epidemiologic studies linking
vaccinations in general, or TDAP specifically, with cervical radiculopathy, not even case reports.”
41 Person years in a measurement used by scientists when performing certain types of prospective studies
measured in time. Verywell Health (Jun. 6, 2024 at 11:26am), https://www.verywellhealth.com/person-
years-and-person-months-3132812. “Person years and person months are types of measurement that take
into account both the number of people in the study and the amount of time each person spends in the
study. For example, a study that follows 1,000 people for one year would contain 1,000 person years of
data. A study that follows 100 people for 10 years would also contain 1,000 person years of data.” Id.
15

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 16 of 27
Id. Dr. Callaghan added that “there are no studies providing evidence of biologic plausibility or
mechanisms linking TDAP vaccinations and cervical radiculopathy.” Id.
Dr. Callaghan concluded by opining that “the cause of Petitioner’s symptoms is more likely
than not a left cervical C7 radiculopathy as diagnosed by multiple providers.” Further,
“[P]etitioner’s cervical radiculopathy, as demonstrated by [his] MRI and EMG/NCS, was most
likely caused by neuroforaminal narrowing from degenerative changes, and there is no evidence a
vaccine can cause, or does cause, cervical radiculopathy.” Id.
3. Dr. Tornatore’s Supplemental Expert Report
Petitioner submitted a supplemental expert report from Dr. Tornatore on May 24, 2021.
Pet’r’s Ex. 58 at 1, ECF No. 55-2. Dr. Tornatore first reiterated the facts that both he and Dr.
Callaghan agreed upon, including that Petitioner had a “prior history of a single episode of left
cervical radiculopathy in 2013[,]” that there “were no documented visits to health care providers
for this condition from 2013-2016[,]” that “there was an acute worsening of [Petitoner’s]
symptoms in August 2016[,]” that the “appropriate diagnosis in this case is left cervical
radiculopathy[,]” and that the “EMG was consistent with an acute worsening of the cervical
radiculopathy[.]” Id. at 1. Dr. Tornatore asserted that “there was no antecedent events other than
the Tdap vaccination.” Id. at 2. Next, Dr. Tornatore addressed two points of disagreement with Dr.
Callaghan. Id.
First, Dr. Tornatore addressed the study discussed in the Adacel package insert involving
an SAE of “one diagnosis of nerve compression in neck and left arm[,]” which the Principle
Investigator (“PI”) attributed to the vaccination. Id. Dr. Tornatore opined that this is a significant
point because the event was labeled as an SAE, rather than the lower classification of “Adverse
Event.” Id. He explained that an SAE classification such as this one reflects a serious and deliberate
calculation by the PI. Id. Next, Dr. Tornatore summarized the three prongs utilized to determine
whether a study drug was the cause of an SAE: (1) “Is there a recognized biological mechanism?”
(2) “Is the timing appropriate?” and (3) “Is there a reasonable sequence of cause and effect?” Id.
Dr. Tornatore noted that these prongs require “extremely compelling” evidence that an SAE was
caused by the study drug, which is why he believes that this reported SAE in a controlled clinical
trial described as “vaccine-related radiculopathy” is significant. Id. Next, Dr. Tornatore replied to
Dr. Callaghan’s critique that one SAE is not statistically significant, instead asserting that rare
SAEs cannot “rise to the level of statistical significance given that clinical trials are not powered
to evaluate efficacy of a study, not rare events which would require enrolling millions of patients.”
Id. Dr. Tornatore opined that this vaccine related SAE is a persuasive significant rare event. Id.
Second, Dr. Tornatore addressed Dr. Callaghan’s critique of his discussion of “the neural
foramina and how it could be compromised following administration of a vaccine, particularly if
muscle spasm caused narrowing of the neural foramina.” Id. Dr. Tornatore stated that this “is an
extremely common event in clinical neurology[,]” and in his three decades of practice, he has seen
“thousands of cases of cervical radiculopathy with attendant muscle spasms resulting in reverse
lordosis42 of the cervical spine narrowing of the neural foramina.” Id. To support this process, Dr.
Tornatore cites an article, Dropped Shoulder Syndrome: A Cause of Lower Cervical
42 Lordosis is “a dorsally concave portion of the vertebral column.” Dorland’s at 1060.
16

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 17 of 27
Radiculopathy, which stated, “[c]ompression of the cervical roots by muscle spasm has been
proposed as the cause of dropped shoulder syndrome.”43 Id. at 2–3 (quoting Pet’r’s Ex. 59 at 1,
ECF No. 55-3). This article discussed dropped shoulder syndrome (“DSS”), a condition found in
the Yemeni patients involved in this study. Pet’r’s Ex. 59 at 2. DSS is the author’s suggested name
for this condition, which is characterized by the “small body build with visually detachable
bilaterally dropped shoulders” occurring in “a considerable number of Yemeni people[.]” Id.
Symptoms include “pain in one or both shoulders that radiates to the ipsilateral44 upper limb, and
other adjacent anatomical regions.” Id. This article discussed a study on whether DSS is a cause
of cervical radiculopathy. Id. The author found that “DSS is a major cause of lower cervical
radiculopathy in Yemeni patients who present with shoulder pain, and had been investigated, with
negative results, for other causes of shoulder pain.” Id. at 5.
Additionally, Dr. Tornatore cited the Adacel vaccine package insert, which stated that
“9.1% of adults who received the vaccine developed sore and swollen joints.” Pet’r’s Ex. 58 at 3
(citing Pet’r’s Ex. 56 at 7). Dr. Tornatore continued that the “neural foramina borders the facet
joint[,] which comes in close approximation to the neve root[,]” and if “there is any underlying
facet disease, as was the case with [Petitioner], then any vaccine-induced swelling of this joint
would further compromise the nerve root causing radicular pain.” Id.
In conclusion, Dr. Tornatore stated that he “respectfully disagree[s]” with Dr. Callaghan’s
opinions. Id. Dr. Tornatore added that his “opinion still remains that the Tdap vaccination that
[Petitioner] received on 8/21/206 resulted in significant aggravation of his underlying cervical
degenerative disc disease[.]” Id.
4. Dr. Callaghan’s Supplemental Expert Report
Respondent submitted Dr. Callaghan’s supplemental expert report on August 9, 2021.
Resp’t’s Ex. C at 1, ECF No. 56-1. To begin, Dr. Callaghan stated that Dr. Tornatore has not cited
recognized biological mechanisms to explain Petitioner’s condition. Id. Instead, Dr. Callaghan
noted that Dr. Tornatore discussed “potential anatomic changes that he speculated may have
occurred[,]” and Dr. Callaghan addressed these points in turn. Id.
First, Dr. Callaghan discussed Dr. Tornatore’s opinion on the SAE in the clinical trial. Id.;
see also Pet’r’s Ex. 56 at 13. Dr. Callaghan argued that Dr. Tornatore failed to explain “how one
SAE in one trial is supportive evidence for Tdap vaccination as a cause of cervical radiculopathy.”
Resp’t’s Ex. C at 1. Dr. Callaghan continued that while clinical trial SAEs are valuable tools to
compare statistically significant adverse effects of different interventions and placebos, the cited
study included only one case of “nerve compression in the neck and left arm” and lacked any
statistical significance. Id. Dr. Callaghan also noted that the study lacked a placebo control group,
instead only comparing the results of Tdap and tetanus-only vaccines. Id. Dr. Callaghan reiterated
that the SAE showed only “a proximate temporal relationship between TDAP vaccination [and]
43 Abdul-Latif, A., Dropped Shoulder Syndrome: A Cause of Lower Cervical Radiculopathy, Journal of
Clinical Neurology, 2011 at 85–89.
44 Ipsilateral means “situated on, pertaining to, or affecting the same side, as opposed to contralateral.”
Dorlands at 947.
17

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 18 of 27
nerve compression in the neck and left arm[,]” and “a proximate temporal relationship is
insufficient to show causation.” Id.
Next, Dr. Callaghan addressed the article submitted by Dr. Tornatore, titled Dropped
Shoulder Syndrome: A Cause of Lower Cervical Radiculopathy by Ali A. Abdul-Latif. Id. at 2
(citing Pet’r’s Ex. 59). Dr. Callaghan explained that this article described “dropped shoulder
syndrome” which typically occurs in Yemen. Id. Dr. Callaghan continued that “[p]atients with this
rare Yemeni disorder have slight body builds . . . and visibly detectable bilateral dropped
shoulders” while Petitioner was obese and did not have dropped shoulders. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex.
59 at 2; Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 6). The authors of the article proposed that the patients’ cervical
radiculopathy was potentially caused by muscle spasms triggered by the bilateral dropped
shoulders. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 59 at 1). The authors also noted that neck muscle traction or the
abnormal posture common in this population may also be a potential cause of the cervical
radiculopathy. Id. (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 59 at 5). Dr. Callaghan cited three reasons why this article is
not relevant to Petitioner’s case: (1) Petitioner is not from Yemen, (2) Petitioner does not have
“bilateral dropped shoulder syndrome or any comparable severe anatomical change that could lead
to cervical radiculopathy[,]” and (3) Petitioner suffered from “known degenerative cervical
changes and cervical radiculopathy prior to vaccination.” Id.
Third, Dr. Callaghan addressed Dr. Tornatore’s argument that “the vaccine induced
swelling of the joints near the neuroforamen [] led to a cervical radiculopathy.” Id. Dr. Callaghan
asserted that Dr. Tornatore failed to provide any evidence to support this claim that vaccines, or
Tdap in particular, can “lead to swelling in the joints near neuroforamina or that this swelling can
be significant enough to cause a cervical radiculopathy.” Id. Dr. Callaghan added that “this
mechanism ignores the clear imaging changes before and after vaccination that reveal degenerative
changes that are related to bone and disc changes in the neck and not joint swelling from a
vaccination.” Id.
III. Ruling on the Record
a. Petitioner’s Motion
In Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the record, filed on December 12, 2022, Petitioner
argued that he is entitled to compensation. Pet’r’s Mot. at 30. Petitioner asserted that his preexisting
cervical degenerative disk disease, which had been stable for three years prior, was significantly
aggravated by his Tdap vaccination. Id. at 13. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that the significant
aggravation took the form of “constant severe pain resulting in a muscle spasm of the shoulder and
cervical muscles and consequent compression of the cervical nerve roots resulting in significant
and prolonged pain and sensory changes.” Id.
Petitioner relied upon the following agreed-upon facts as established by Petitioner’s
affidavit, medical records, and expert reporting: (1) Petitioner had preexisting cervical
radiculopathy secondary to degenerative disk disease, which was diagnosed in 2013; (2)
Petitioner’s cervical radiculopathy did not recur after 2013 until the vaccination in 2016; and (3)
the correct post vaccination diagnosis is C7 cervical radiculopathy, as stated by both Dr. Callaghan
18

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 19 of 27
and Dr. Tornatore. Id. at 14 (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 42 at 10–11; Pet’r’s Ex. 53 at 11–23; Resp’t’s Ex.
A at 4).
Petitioner highlighted the qualifications of his expert, Dr. Tornatore, noting that he has
been a board-certified neurologist since 1991, he serves as a Professor and Chairman of the
Department of Neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center and Chairman and
Neurologist-in-Chief at Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, and oversees an impressive
amount of research in these roles. Pet’r’s Mot. at 17–18. Petitioner argued that Dr. Tornatore is
“highly regarded and highly respected in the field of neurology” and “qualified in every aspect of
[Petitioner’s] case[.]” Id. at 19. Petitioner pointed to Dr. Tornatore’s medical theory outlined in his
expert reports to support the significant aggravation of Petitioner’s cervical radiculopathy. Id. 19–
23.
Finally, Petitioner argued that he has met his burden under Loving, given the prior
diagnosis, Petitioner’s post-vaccination symptoms, and Dr. Tornatore’s expert opinion on the
matter. Id. at 29–30.
b. Respondent’s Response
On January 9, 2023, Respondent filed a response to Petitioner’s motion for a ruling on the
record, arguing that Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to compensation. Resp’t’s
Resp. at 2. 45
Respondent asserted that Petitioner failed to establish a successful causation-in-fact
SIRVA claim under Althen. Id. at 20. Respondent argued that Petitioner had a history of pre-
vaccination left arm pain. Id. at 21 (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 53 at 9–10). Further, Respondent criticized
Dr. Tornatore’s expert opinion for relying on a study based on Yemeni patients with “a rare
Yemeni disorder with a different body hiatus than [P]etitioner and noticeably dropped bilateral
shoulders, which [P]etitioner did not have.” Id. at 21. Respondent asserted that Petitioner failed to
satisfy Althen prongs one and two. Id. Respondent reasoned that Dr. Tornatore’s opinion “is not
based upon a reliable medical theory of casual connection or a logical cause and effect sequence”
between the vaccination and injury because the Yemeni study is not reliable nor applicable to
Petitioner. Id. Respondent further cited the fact that none of Petitioner’s treating physicians
attributed the aggravation of Petitioner’s cervical radiculopathy to his vaccination. Id. at 24 (citing
Pet’r’s Ex 20 at 6; Pet’r’s Ex. 23 at 14–16; Pet’r’s Ex. 43 at 7, 9; Pet’r’s Ex. 10 at 7, 9; Pet’r’s Ex.
3 at 5–8). Respondent asserted that Petitioner also failed to meet Althen prong three because there
is no objective evidence or medical basis that explains the timing between the vaccination and the
onset of symptoms. Id. at 26 (citing Pet’r’s Ex 20 at 6; Ex. 23 at 14–16; Pet’r’s Ex. 43 at 7, 9;
Pet’r’s Ex. 10 at 7, 9; Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 5–8). Additionally, Respondent cited Petitioner’s failure to
report symptoms to his neurologist during an appointment five days post vaccination. Id.
Respondent summarized Dr. Tornatore’s analysis as a “post hoc ergo propter hoc rationale (i.e.,
45 Respondent first argued that Petitioner failed to provide preponderant evidence of a SIRVA Table Injury.
Resp’t’s Resp. at 15. It is unclear why Respondent addressed a SIRVA Table claim because Petitioner has
never clearly plead a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner’s original petition included a causation-in-fact SIRVA
claim. Pet. at 3. Petitioner’s amended petition included a significant aggravation of cervical radiculopathy
claim. Am. Pet. at 2.
19

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 20 of 27
the majority of petitioner’s reported symptoms happened after his [Tdap] vaccination, so it likely
must be because of the subject vaccine).” Id.
Lastly, Respondent argued that Petitioner did not establish significant aggravation of
cervical radiculopathy under Loving. Id. at 27. Respondent asserted that Petitioner did not fulfill
the Loving prongs because he failed to meet all three Althen prongs, which are incorporated in the
Loving standard. Id. at 28.
c. Petitioner’s Reply
In Petitioner’s reply, filed on January 25, 2023, Petitioner clarified that he is seeking
entitlement only for significant aggravation of cervical radiculopathy.46 Pet’r’s Reply at 1, ECF
No. 63. Petitioner next disputed Respondent’s analysis of Dr. Tornatore’s report, asserting that Dr.
Tornatore never “admit[ted] that there [was] insufficient information” within the Yemeni case
study. Id. at 3. Further, Petitioner asserted that Dr. Tornatore’s report included a comprehensive
analysis of the SAE discussed in the vaccine insert, with application to Petitioner’s case. Id. at 3–
4. Petitioner also contested Respondent’s assertion that Dr. Tornatore’s expert report relied solely
upon the above case studies. Id. at 4–5. Instead, Petitioner argued that the opinion was based upon
Dr. Tornatore’s expert opinion and “supported by sound and reliable medical and scientific
evidence.” Id. at 5.
Additionally, Petitioner rebutted Respondent’s assertion that there is not a medically
appropriate temporal relationship to satisfy Althen prong three and/or Loving prong six. Id.
Petitioner relied on his affidavit, the opinions of treating physicians, and Dr. Tornatore’s report to
support an appropriate temporal relationship. Id. at 5–6 (citing Pet’r’s Ex. 23 at 11; Pet’r’s Ex. 43
at 7–9; Pet’r’s Ex. 2 at 7; Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 4). Petitioner asserted that Respondent requiring treating
physicians to “provide objective evidence or a medical basis that explained the temporal
association” beyond opinion, diagnosis, and treatment itself, is requiring a higher burden than
necessary. Id. Lastly, Petitioner noted that Respondent failed to address Loving prongs one through
three, instead focusing only on Althen. Id. at 7.
IV. Applicable Legal Standard
I am resolving Petitioner’s claim on the filed record. The Vaccine Act and Rules not only
contemplate but encourage special masters to decide petitions on the papers where, in the exercise
of their discretion, they conclude that doing so will properly and fairly resolve the case. See 42
U.S.C. § 12(d)(2)(D); Vaccine Rule 8(d). The decision to rule on the record in lieu of a hearing
has been affirmed on appeal. Kreizenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 945 F.3d 1362, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2020); see also Hooker v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 02-472V, 2016 WL
3456435, at *21 n.19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 19, 2016) (citing numerous cases where special
masters decided cases on the papers in lieu of hearing and those decisions were upheld). I am
simply not required to hold a hearing in every matter, no matter the preferences of the parties.
Hovey v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 38 Fed. Cl. 397, 402–03 (1997) (determining that the
46 Petitioner stated that his petition does not include a Table SIRVA claim or a causation-in-fact shoulder
injury claim. Id. at 1–2.
20

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 21 of 27
special master acted within his discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing); Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Murphy v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,
No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 71500, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 1991).
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must demonstrate either that:
(1) the petitioner suffered a “Table injury” by receiving a covered vaccine and subsequently
developing a listed injury within the time frame prescribed by the Vaccine Injury Table set forth
at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14, as amended by 42 C.F.R. § 100.3; or (2) that petitioner suffered an “off-
Table injury,” one not listed on the Table, as a result of his receiving a covered vaccine. See 42
U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(C); Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2010); Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir.
2006). Petitioner does not allege a Table injury in this case; thus, he must prove that his injury was
caused-in-fact or significantly aggravated by a Table vaccine.
In the seminal case of Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., the Federal Circuit set forth
a three-pronged test used to determine whether a petitioner has established a causal link between
a vaccine and the claimed injury. See 418 F.3d at 1278–79. The Althen test requires petitioners to
set forth: “(1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and (3) a
showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.” Id. at 1278.
Each of the Althen prongs requires a different showing. Under Althen prong one, petitioners
must provide a “reputable medical theory,” demonstrating that the vaccine received can cause the
type of injury alleged. Pafford v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355–56 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). To satisfy this prong, a petitioner’s theory must be based on a “sound
and reliable medical or scientific explanation.” Knudsen v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 F.3d
543, 548 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Such a theory must only be “legally probable, not medically or
scientifically certain.” Id. at 549.
Petitioner may satisfy the first Althen prong without resort to medical literature,
epidemiological studies, demonstration of a specific mechanism, or a generally accepted medical
theory. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing
Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1325–26). This may be accomplished in a number of ways. “Reliability
and plausibility of . . . pathogenesis can be bolstered by providing evidence that at least a sufficient
minority in the medical community has accepted the theory, so as to render it credible.” See Pafford
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 01-0165V, 2004 WL 1717359, at *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
July 16, 2004). Special masters, despite their expertise, are not empowered by statute to
conclusively resolve what are complex scientific and medical questions, and thus scientific
evidence offered to establish Althen prong one is viewed “not through the lens of the laboratorian,
but instead from the vantage point of the Vaccine Act’s preponderant evidence standard.” Andreu,
569 F.3d at 1380. The special master essentially must weigh and evaluate opposing evidence in
deciding whether a petitioner has met their burden of proof. See id.; see also Grant v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The second Althen prong requires proof of a logical sequence of cause and effect, usually
supported by facts derived from a petitioner’s medical records. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278; Andreu,
21

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 22 of 27
569 F.3d at 1375–77. The third Althen prong requires establishing a “proximate temporal
relationship” between the vaccination and the injury alleged. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1281. That term
has been equated to the phrase “medically-acceptable temporal relationship.” Id. A petitioner must
offer “preponderant proof that the onset of symptoms occurred within a timeframe which, given
the medical understanding of the disorder’s etiology, it is medically acceptable to infer causation.”
de Bazan v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The explanation
for what is a medically acceptable timeframe must also coincide with the theory of how the relevant
vaccine can cause an injury (Althen prong one’s requirement). Id. at 1352; Shapiro v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 101 Fed. Cl. 532, 542 (2011), recons. denied after remand on other
grounds, 105 Fed. Cl. 353 (2012), aff’d without op., 503 F. App’x 952 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Koehn v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11-355V, 2013 WL 3214877 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 30,
2013), mot. for review denied (Fed. Cl. Dec. 3, 2013), aff’d, 773 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The
special master cannot infer causation from temporal proximity alone. See Thibaudeau v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 24 Cl. Ct. 400, 403–04 (1991); see also Grant, 956 F.2d at 1148.
A petitioner who satisfies all three prongs of the Althen test has established a prima facie
showing of causation. Hammitt v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 98 Fed. Cl. 719, 726 (2011).
When and if a petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the government
to prove that an alternative cause, unrelated to the administration of the vaccine, was the “sole
substantial factor” in causing the alleged injury. de Bazan, 539 F.3d at 1354; see also Hammitt, 98
Fed. Cl. at 726 (explaining that the respondent’s burden is to show that the “factor unrelated” was
the “sole substantial factor” in causing the injury). Additionally, a factor unrelated “may not
include ‘any idiopathic, unexplained, unknown, hypothetical, or undocumentable cause, factor,
injury, illness or condition.’” § 300aa-13(a)(2).
In this case, Petitioner has alleged that his preexisting cervical radiculopathy was
significantly aggravated by his vaccination. The Vaccine Act defines significant aggravation as
“any change for the worse in a preexisting condition which results in markedly greater disability,
pain, or illness accompanied by substantial deterioration of health.” § 300aa-33(4). In Loving, the
United States Court of Federal Claims established the governing six-part test for off-Table
significant aggravation claims. Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) the person’s condition prior to administration of the vaccine, (2) the person’s current
condition (or the condition following the vaccination if that is also pertinent), (3)
whether the person’s current condition constitutes a ‘significant aggravation’ of the
person’s condition prior to vaccination, (4) a medical theory causally connecting such
a significant worsened condition to the vaccination, (5) a logical sequence of cause and
effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the significant aggravation, and
(6) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccination and the
significant aggravation.
Loving, 86 Fed. Cl. at 144; see also W.C. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 704 F.3d 1352, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2013) (adopting this as the proper legal standard for significant aggravation claims
brought under the Vaccine Act).
22

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 23 of 27
The first two prongs of Loving are preliminary steps that are necessary to “evaluate the
person’s pre-vaccination condition and current, post-vaccination condition.” Whitecotton v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 81 F.3d 1099, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Indeed, “these two steps are
practically inherent in the term ‘aggravation.’” Id. In Sharpe, the Federal Circuit clarified
the Loving prongs and what is required by petitioners to successfully demonstrate a causation-in-
fact significant aggravation claim. Sharpe v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 964 F.3d 1072 (Fed.
Cir. 2020). Loving prong three requires only a comparison of a petitioner’s current, post-
vaccination condition, with her pre-existing, pre-vaccination condition. Id. at
1082; Whitecotton, 81 F.3d at 1099. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate an expected
outcome or that her post-vaccination condition was worse than such an expected outcome. Sharpe,
964 F.3d at 1081. Further, a petitioner is not required “to disprove that a pre-existing genetic
mutation caused [his] significant aggravation.” Id. at 1087.
Loving prongs four, five, and six are derived from the three Althen prongs. See Althen, 418
F.3d at 1281. Under Loving prong four, a petitioner must provide a “medical theory causally
connecting [the petitioner’s] significantly worsened condition to the vaccination.” See Sharpe, 964
F.3d at 1083; see also Loving, 86 Fed. Cl. at 144. In other words, a petitioner is required to present
a medically reliable theory demonstrating that a vaccine “can cause a significant worsening” of
the condition. Sharpe, 964 F.3d at 1083 (citing Pafford, 451 F.3d at1356–57). A petitioner may be
able to establish a prima facie case under Loving prong four without eliminating a pre-existing
condition as the cause of her significantly aggravated injury. Id. (citing Walther v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 485 F.3d 1146, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting that “the government bears the
burden of establishing alterative causation . . . once petitioner has established a prima facie case”)).
Loving prong five requires a petitioner to show “a logical sequence of cause and effect
showing that the vaccination was the reason for the significant aggravation.” Loving, 86 Fed. Cl.
at 144. In other words, a petitioner must show that the vaccination “did cause a worsening of [a
petitioner’s underlying disorder].” Id. The sixth prong of Loving is an adaptation of Althen prong
three’s requirement of a medically-acceptable temporal relationship. Id.
In Program cases, contemporaneous medical records and the opinions of treating
physicians are favored. Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1326 (citing Althen, 418 F.3d at 1280). This is
because “treating physicians are likely to be in the best position to determine whether ‘a logical
sequence of cause-and-effect show[s] that the vaccination was the reason for the injury.’” Id. In
addition, “[m]edical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence. The
records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in the balance, accuracy has an
extra premium. These records are also generally contemporaneous to the medical
events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While
a special master must consider these opinions and records, they are not “binding on the special
master or court.” § 13(b)(1). Rather, when “evaluating the weight to be afforded to any such . . .
[evidence], the special master . . . shall consider the entire record . . . .” Id. There is no presumption
that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the patient’s physical conditions. Kirby v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding that “[b]ecause a
reasonable fact finder could conclude that [the petitioner’s] testimony [wa]s not inconsistent with
her medical records . . . it was not arbitrary and capricious for the special master to credit [the
23

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 24 of 27
petitioner’s] testimony” over her medical records). Where there are inconsistencies, special
masters are within their discretion to award contemporaneous medical records greater weight than
later conflicting testimony. See Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528 (holding that the special master’s
reliance on contemporaneous medical records over conflicting oral testimony given after the fact
was not arbitrary or capricious); see also Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that the decision of whether to accord greater weight to contemporaneous
medical records or later given testimony is “uniquely within the purview of the special master”).
V. Analysis
a. Table Injury
Petitioner’s pre-existing cervical radiculopathy precludes any potential Table SIRVA
claim. See 42 CFR §100.3(c)(10). Further, as Petitioner pleaded in his amended petition and
reiterated in his reply to Respondent’s response to a motion for a ruling on the record, Petitioner
is not claiming entitlement for a Table SIRVA. Am. Pet. at 2; Pet’r’s Reply at 1–2. As such, I will
not discuss the requirements for a Table SIRVA.
b. Pre-Vaccination Condition (Loving Prong One)
Both experts agree that Petitioner had a pre-vaccination diagnosis of cervical
radiculopathy. Resp’t’s Ex. A at 1, 4; Pet’r’s Ex. 53 at 9–10. Petitioner suffered from left upper
arm pain and weakness with a reduced reflex, which Dr. McGee diagnosed as cervical
radiculopathy on June 3, 2013. Pet’r’s Ex. 43 at 10. Following his 2013 diagnosis and injection
treatment, the medical records establish that Petitioner did not seek additional pre-vaccination
treatment for his cervical radiculopathy or any condition involving neck pain or motor or sensory
symptoms in his upper extremities. Petitioner did not address whether he experienced cervical
radiculopathy symptoms pre-vaccination in his affidavit. There is preponderant evidence that
Petitioner suffered from cervical radiculopathy prior to his vaccination at issue.
c. Current Condition/Post Vaccination Condition (Loving Prong Two)
The record establishes that after the vaccination, Petitioner’s condition significantly
worsened. Prior to the vaccination, Petitioner had not sought treatment for his cervical
radiculopathy since 2013. Petitioner’s affidavit provides evidence that he felt immediate pain after
receiving the vaccination, which significantly worsened by the next morning. Pet’r’s Ex. 40 ¶ 4.
Throughout the following week, Petitioner’s symptoms continued such that he could not work or
rest. Id. ¶ 5. The first medical record noting Petitioner’s post-vaccination symptoms is from
September 8, 2016, eighteen days post-vaccination. Pet’r’s Ex. 43 at 7. At this visit with Dr.
McGee, Petitioner complained of “a reaction to [Tdap]” and left arm pain down to his hand. Id.
Dr. McGee diagnosed Petitioner, again, with cervical radiculopathy with a note that it was a
“[r]eaction to [Tdap]” and prescribed a pain medication and muscle relaxant. Id. at 9. Petitioner
also sought out massage, steroid injections, increased pain medication, and chiropractic treatment
within the first month and a half after the vaccination in an attempt to treat his symptoms. See
Pet’r’s Ex. 40 ¶ 6–17. Petitioner saw a number of physicians in various fields, including
chiropractic, neurology, orthopedics, and physical therapy.
24

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 25 of 27
It is notable that Petitioner saw his neurologist, Dr. Hinton, on August 26, 2016, five days
post vaccination and failed to mention any symptoms relating to the vaccination or his left arm
pain. Pet’r’s Ex. 23 at 14, 16. However, Dr. Hinton was treating Petitioner’s sleep disorders, which
resulted in a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Id. It is reasonable that Petitioner did
not believe his arm pain was relevant to his neurology appointment. This is especially more
significant considering that Petitioner still believed that his arm pain was routine post-vaccination
soreness until August 28, 2017, according to his affidavit. See Pet’r’s Ex. 40 ¶ 4.
The fact that Petitioner’s cervical radiculopathy symptoms, which had not required
treatment since 2013, escalated to the point that Petitioner sought out a multitude of various
treatments post vaccination demonstrates that Petitioner’s condition significantly worsened. This
finding is further supported by Dr. McGee’s diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy as a reaction to
Tdap on September 8, 2016. See Pet’r’s Ex. 43 at 7. As of the date he executed his affidavit, March
27, 2022, Petitioner reported that he has not found a successful treatment for his pain. See Pet’r’s
Ex. 40 ¶ 27. The fact that Petitioner failed to report arm pain during his neurology appointment
five days post vaccination does not alter my finding that Petitioner experienced a significantly
worsened condition after the vaccination.
d. Significant Aggravation (Loving Prong Three)
The Vaccine Act defines significant aggravation as “any change for the worse in a
preexisting condition which results in markedly greater disability, pain, or illness accompanied by
substantial deterioration of health.” § 300aa-33(4). A comparison of the findings of fact under the
above Loving prongs shows that Petitioner’s post-vaccination condition reflects a change for the
worse from his pre-vaccination condition, including symptoms of numbness, tingling, and pain
from his left arm, forearm, and hand, neck stiffness, and muscle spasms during the period
following the vaccination. Dr. Callaghan and Dr. Tornatore agree that Petitioner’s cervical
radiculopathy worsened after the vaccination, with Dr. Callaghan only disputing that the
vaccination caused this worsening of symptoms. Resp’t’s Ex. A at 4. The significant aggravation
causation theory is addressed below by Loving prongs four through six.
e. General Causation (Althen Prong One/Loving Prong Four)
Petitioner is required to present a medical theory of causation demonstrating that the Tdap
vaccine could have significantly aggravated Petitioner’s preexisting cervical radiculopathy. Dr.
Tornatore theorized that the vaccine injection resulted in muscle spasms of the shoulder and
cervical muscles, which can trigger preexisting cervical radiculopathy by compressing the cervical
nerve roots. Pet’r’s Ex. 53 at 14. Dr. Tornatore elaborated that the deltoid muscle, the injection
site, is closely associated with the trapezius muscle. Id. Any deltoid muscle pain can cause spasm
of the trapezius with “resulting neck pain[.]” Id. Specifically, the “cervical nerve roots would be
compressed[,] resulting in pain and sensory changes in a dermatomal distribution[,]” a phenomena
that he has seen frequently in his practice over the past three decades. Id.
Dr. Tornatore did not explicitly characterize this injury as mechanical or inflammatory.
Indeed, the medical theory that the injection triggered a muscle spasm, thus aggravating
preexisting cervical radiculopathy, may be best characterized as a hybrid injury theory. The
25

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 26 of 27
mechanical injury can arise due to trauma from the improper insertion of the needle, while
inflammation can result from the introduction of the vaccine into and around the outside of the
deltoid. Dr. Tornatore’s theory incorporates some aspects of the mechanical nature of SIRVA and
describes a process where the injection triggers an inflammatory response.
Dr. Tornatore’s theory provides preponderant evidence that the Tdap vaccination can cause
a significant aggravation of preexisting cervical radiculopathy. Dr. Tornatore’s opinion is
supported by his testimony that he has regularly encountered this phenomenon in three decades of
practice. The mechanical injury and resulting inflammation and symptoms are logical and
sufficiently fleshed out under Dr. Tornatore’s theory. Further, Dr. Callaghan criticized the cited
data and medical literature, but failed to directly contest the theorized mechanism itself. The
previous SIRVA cases in the Program support the legitimacy of a mechanical injury theory, paired
with a resulting inflammatory process. Petitioner has met this prong.
f. Specific Causation (Althen Prong Two/Loving Prong Five)
As established above, Petitioner was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy in 2013. Pet’r’s
Ex. 43 at 10–11, 16. The parties agree that Petitioner had not experienced cervical radiculopathy
symptoms or sought further medical treatment for cervical radiculopathy since 2013. It is also
undisputed that Petitioner sought treatment for an alleged reaction, including left arm pain which
radiated to his hand, eighteen days after receiving the Tdap vaccination in 2016. See Pet’r’s Ex.
43 at 7–9. However, the parties disagree as to whether the Tdap vaccination was the cause of
Petitioner’s symptoms.
Petitioner has presented preponderant evidence that the significant aggravation of his
preexisting cervical radiculopathy manifested after vaccination. Petitioner’s affidavit discussed the
immediate onset of pain from the vaccination, which continuously became worse until he sought
medical intervention with Dr. McGee eighteen days later. See Pet’r’s Ex. 40 ¶¶ 5–10. Dr. McGee’s
diagnosis and treating plan included “[a]rm pain: Reaction to TDAP, [p]ossibly referred pain from
neck, no induration” as well as preexisting cervical radiculopathy and lumbar disc disease. Pet’r’s
Ex. 43 at 9.
Petitioner sought timely medical intervention with a multitude of physicians and
treatments. Petitioner consistently described his symptoms during these appointments, including
left arm, neck, and shoulder pain and numbness, and attributed this pain to the 2016 Tdap
vaccination. Pet’r’s Ex. 43 at 7; Pet’r’s Ex. 2 at 6–10; Pet’r’s Ex. 4 at 4; Pet’r’s Ex 23. at 11; Pet’r’s
Ex. 5 at 49; Pet’r’s Ex. 3 at 5. Petitioner’s treatments included muscle relaxers, neuropathic pain
medications, opioid pain medications, anti-inflammatory medications, epidural treatments,
massages, chiropractic treatments, and adjustments to his lifestyle. Petitioner’s pain continues to
affect him through at least the date of his affidavit. Pet’r’s Ex. 40 ¶ 14.
The medical record contains preponderant evidence that but for the August 2016 Tdap
vaccination, Petitioner would not have experienced a significant aggravation of his preexisting
cervical radiculopathy. Petitioner’s symptoms, diagnoses, including Dr. McGee’s assessment that
Petitioner experienced a reaction to the vaccination, and timeline are well documented in the
medical record by treating physicians to sufficiently prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
26

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 66 Filed 07/15/24 Page 27 of 27
the Tdap vaccination caused a significant aggravation of Petitioner’s preexisting cervical
radiculopathy. Petitioner satisfied prong two of Althen.
g. Proximate Temporal Relationship (Althen Prong Three/Loving Prong
Six)
The final prong requires Petitioner to show that the timing of the injury fits with the causal
theory. I find that there is preponderant evidence of an appropriate temporal relationship between
Petitioner’s Tdap vaccination and the significant aggravation of his cervical radiculopathy. Under
Dr. Tornatore’s mechanical muscle spasm theory, a patient would feel immediate pain with
injection. Pet’r’s Ex. 53 at 13. Petitioner’s affidavit established that, at administration, “it hurt a
lot more than other vaccines [Petitioner had] taken” and “REALLY hurt as [Petitioner] walked out
of the store.” Pet’r’s Ex. 40 ¶ 3. Petitioner rested the remainder of the day because his arm was “so
uncomfortable” and awoke the next day and his “left arm was extremely painful.” Id. Petitioner
also repeatedly recounted this timeline to his treating physicians, as is well-documented in the
medical records.
Petitioner’s immediate onset of pain with injection appropriately aligns with the medical
theory. Further, there is no evidence that Petitioner was experiencing any left arm pain prior to his
Tdap vaccination on August 21, 2016. Petitioner satisfied prong three of Althen.
VI. Conclusion
After careful review of the record, Petitioner has established by preponderant evidence that
he suffered from a significant aggravation of his cervical radiculopathy as a result of his August
21, 2016 Tdap vaccination. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to compensation. This case shall
proceed to damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
27

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01243-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-19
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/23/2025) regarding 78 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (krt) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 82 Filed 02/19/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: January 23, 2025
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BASIL MCNEELY, *
* Special Master Young
Petitioner, *
v. * No. 18-1243V
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Renee J. Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Jamica M. Littles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 20, 2018, Basil McNeely (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner
later filed an amended petition on October 14, 2020. Am. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 48. Petitioner alleged
that the administration of the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received
on August 21, 2016 caused significant aggravation of his preexisting cervical radiculopathy. Id. at
2. On June 28, 2024, I ruled that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement,
ECF No. 65.
On January 23, 2024, Respondent filed Respondent’s Proffer on Award of Compensation
(“Proffer”), attached hereto as Appendix A. Proffer, ECF No. 77. Based on the record as a whole,
1 Because this unpublished 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), Petitioners have 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 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act,” “the Act,” or the “program”).
1

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 82 Filed 02/19/25 Page 2 of 5
I find the Proffer reasonable and adopt it as the Decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the
terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, attached as Appendix A, I award Petitioner:
(1) A lump sum payment of $78,703.03, representing compensation for pain and suffering
($74,000.00) and past unreimbursable expenses ($4,703.03), in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner, Basil McNeely. This amount represents compensation for all
damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a
motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. S. Young
Herbrina D. S. Young
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 82 Filed 02/19/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
BASIL MCNEELY, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 18-1243V
v. ) Special Master Young
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On August 20, 2018, Basil McNeely (“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 he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a
tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received on August 21, 2016.
Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1, 3-4. On January 21, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case was not appropriate for
compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 37.
This case was reassigned to this special master on April 3, 2020, and on October 12,
2020, petitioner filed an expert report indicating that his August 2016 Tdap vaccine significantly
aggravated his pre-existing left C7 radiculopathy. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Ex”) 53 at 9-10. On
October 14, 2020, petitioner filed an Amended Petition averring the same, and on February 19,
2021, respondent filed a responsive expert report. ECF No. 48 at 2; Ex. A at 1-4. Petitioner also

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 82 Filed 02/19/25 Page 4 of 5
filed a supplemental expert report on May 24, 2021, and respondent filed a responsive
supplemental expert report on August 9, 2021. ECF Nos. 55-56.
Following briefing, on June 28, 2024, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding
that petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 65.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $74,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.
B. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that he incurred past unreimbursable expenses
related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past
unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $4,703.03. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B).
Petitioner agrees.
These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
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
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s
June 28, 2024, entitlement decision.
2

Case 1:18-vv-01243-UNJ Document 82 Filed 02/19/25 Page 5 of 5
Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $78,703.03, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Basil McNeely: $78,703.03
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Jamica M. Littles
JAMICA M. LITTLES
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) 305-4014
Email: jamica.m.littles@usdoj.gov
DATED: January 23, 2025
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 lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
3

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01243-cl-extra-10802115
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-19
Pages: 1
Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10335527
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                       Filed: January 23, 2025

*************************
BASIL MCNEELY,                              *
                                            *       Special Master Young
                      Petitioner,           *
v.                                          *       No. 18-1243V
                                            *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                         *
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                         *
                                            *
                      Respondent.           *
*************************
Renee J. Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Jamica M. Littles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                                DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

         On August 20, 2018, Basil McNeely (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner
later filed an amended petition on October 14, 2020. Am. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 48. Petitioner alleged
that the administration of the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received
on August 21, 2016 caused significant aggravation of his preexisting cervical radiculopathy. Id. at
2. On June 28, 2024, I ruled that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. Ruling on Entitlement,
ECF No. 65.

       On January 23, 2024, Respondent filed Respondent’s Proffer on Award of Compensation
(“Proffer”), attached hereto as Appendix A. Proffer, ECF No. 77. Based on the record as a whole,



1
  Because this unpublished 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), Petitioners have 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
  The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act,” “the Act,” or the “program”).


                                                       1
I find the Proffer reasonable and adopt it as the Decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the
terms set forth therein.

        Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, attached as Appendix A, I award Petitioner:

    (1) A lump sum payment of $78,703.03, representing compensation for pain and suffering
        ($74,000.00) and past unreimbursable expenses ($4,703.03), in the form of a check
        payable to Petitioner, Basil McNeely. This amount represents compensation for all
        damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

       I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a
motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER
JUDGMENT herewith.3

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                                   s/Herbrina D. S. Young
                                                                   Herbrina D. S. Young
                                                                   Special Master




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


                                                     2
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
                         OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

                                                   )
 BASIL MCNEELY,                                    )
                                                   )
                Petitioner,                        )
                                                   )    No. 18-1243V
 v.                                                )    Special Master Young
                                                   )    ECF
 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN                     )
 SERVICES,                                         )
                                                   )
                Respondent.                        )
                                                   )

             RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

       On August 20, 2018, Basil McNeely (“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 he suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (“SIRVA”), as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table, following administration of a

tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received on August 21, 2016.

Petition, ECF No. 1 at 1, 3-4. On January 21, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services

(“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report indicating that this case was not appropriate for

compensation under the terms of the Act for a SIRVA Table injury. ECF No. 37.

       This case was reassigned to this special master on April 3, 2020, and on October 12,

2020, petitioner filed an expert report indicating that his August 2016 Tdap vaccine significantly

aggravated his pre-existing left C7 radiculopathy. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Ex”) 53 at 9-10. On

October 14, 2020, petitioner filed an Amended Petition averring the same, and on February 19,

2021, respondent filed a responsive expert report. ECF No. 48 at 2; Ex. A at 1-4. Petitioner also
filed a supplemental expert report on May 24, 2021, and respondent filed a responsive

supplemental expert report on August 9, 2021. ECF Nos. 55-56.

       Following briefing, on June 28, 2024, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding

that petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 65.

I.     Items of Compensation

       A.      Pain and Suffering

       Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $74,000.00 in pain and suffering.

See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

       B.      Past Unreimbursable Expenses

       Evidence supplied by petitioner documents that he incurred past unreimbursable expenses

related to his vaccine-related injury. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded past

unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $4,703.03. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(1)(B).

Petitioner agrees.

       These amounts represent all elements of compensation to which petitioner is entitled

under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.

II.    Form of the Award

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

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




1
  Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s
June 28, 2024, entitlement decision.

                                                2
Court’s judgment award the following 2: a lump sum payment of $78,703.03, in the form of a

check payable to petitioner.

III.   Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment

       Lump sum payable to petitioner, Basil McNeely:                               $78,703.03

                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                             BRIAN M. BOYNTON
                                             Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

                                             C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
                                             Director
                                             Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                             HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
                                             Deputy Director
                                             Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                             COLLEEN C. HARTLEY
                                             Assistant Director
                                             Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                             /s/ Jamica M. Littles
                                             JAMICA M. LITTLES
                                             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) 305-4014
                                             Email: jamica.m.littles@usdoj.gov

DATED: January 23, 2025




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 lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
                                                 3


================================================================================
DOCUMENT 4: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01243-cl-extra-11271027
Date issued/filed: 2026-03-04
Pages: 1
Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10804297
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                     OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                        Filed: November 25, 2025

* * * * * * * * * * * * *  *
BASIL MCNEELY,             *                             No. 18-1243
                           *
         Petitioner,       *                             Special Master Young
                           *
v.                         *
                           *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH        *
AND HUMAN SERVICES,        *
                           *
         Respondent.       *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Renee Ja Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner;
Jamica Marie Littles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                    DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

        On August 20, 2018, Basil McNeely (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant
to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018)2 (the
“Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner later filed an amended petition on October 14, 2020. Am.
Pet. at 1, ECF No. 48. Petitioner alleged that the administration of the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received on August 21, 2016, caused significant aggravation of his
preexisting cervical radiculopathy. Id. at 2. On June 28, 2024, I issued a ruling on entitlement finding
Petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 65. On January 23, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer
which I adopted decision awarding damages on the same day. ECF No. 78.

      On April 4, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (“Pet’r’s Mot. for
AFC”) (ECF No. 83). Petitioner requests total attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $110,599.80,

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.
representing $70,649.25 in attorneys’ fees and $24,090.55 in attorneys’ costs associated with
Petitioner’s current counsel, Ms. Renee Gentry, as well as $15,860.00 in attorneys’ fees associated
with Petitioner’s prior counsel at Thetford & Thetford LLC. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC at 1. Pursuant to
General Order No. 9, Petitioner states that he personally incurred costs in the amount of $402.31
related to the prosecution of his petition. Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC Supporting Documentation at 1-2.
Respondent responded to the motion on April 7, 2025, stating that Respondent “is satisfied that the
statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs are met in this case” and asking the
Court to “exercise its discretion and determine a reasonable award for attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Resp’t’s Resp. at 2, 4. (ECF No. 84). Petitioner did not file a reply.

        This matter is now ripe for consideration.

   I.      Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

        The Vaccine Act permits an award of “reasonable attorneys’ fees” and “other costs.” §
15(e)(1). If a petitioner succeeds on the merits of her or her claim, the award of attorneys' fees is
automatic. Id.; see Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1891 (2013). However, a petitioner need not
prevail on entitlement to receive a fee award as long as the petition was brought in “good faith” and
there was a “reasonable basis” for the claim to proceed. § 15(e)(1). Here, because Petitioner was
awarded compensation pursuant to a proffer, he is entitled to a final award of reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs.

         The Federal Circuit has approved the lodestar approach to determine reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs under the Vaccine Act. Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2008). This is a two-step process. Id. First, a court determines an “initial estimate . . . by
‘multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly
rate.’” Id. at 1347–48 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984)). Second, the court may
make an upward or downward departure from the initial calculation of the fee award based on specific
findings. Id. at 1348.

        It is “well within the special master’s discretion” to determine the reasonableness of fees.
Saxton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 1517, 1521–22 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also Hines v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 22 Cl. Ct. 750, 753 (1991). (“[T]he reviewing court must grant the
special master wide latitude in determining the reasonableness of both attorneys’ fees and costs.”).
Applications for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous and specific billing records that
indicate the work performed and the number of hours spent on said work. See Savin v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 85 Fed. Cl. 313, 316–18 (2008). Such applications, however, should not include
hours that are “‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).

        Reasonable hourly rates are determined by looking at the “prevailing market rate” in the
relevant community. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 895. The “prevailing market rate” is akin to the rate “in
the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
reputation.” Id. at 895, n.11. Petitioners bear the burden of providing adequate evidence to prove that
the requested hourly rate is reasonable. Id.




                                                       2
        A.      Reasonable Hourly Rates

        The decision in McCulloch provides a framework for consideration of appropriate ranges for
attorneys’ fees based upon the experience of the practicing attorney. McCulloch v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 09-293V, 2015 WL 5634323, at *19 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 1, 2015), motion
for recons. denied, 2015 WL 6181910 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 21, 2015). The Court has since
updated the McCulloch rates, and the Attorneys’ Forum Hourly Rate Fee Schedules can be accessed
online.3

         Petitioner requests the following rates of compensation for her counsel at The Law Office of
Renee J. Gentry, Esq.: for Ms. Renee Gentry, the rate of $435.00 per hour for work performed in
2018, $445.00 per hour for work performed in 2019, $464.00 per hour for work performed in 2020,
$489.00 per hour for work performed in 2021, $504.00 per hour for work performed in 2022, $531.00
per hour for work performed in 2023, $561.00 per hour for work performed in 2024, and $602.00 per
hour for work performed in 2025; and for Mr. Clifford Shoemaker, $450.00 per hour for work
performed in 2018, and $460.00 per hour for work performed in 2019. Petitioner also requests
$150.00 per hour for paralegal work performed in 2018 and 2019. The rates requested are consistent
with what counsel and paralegals have previously been awarded for their Vaccine Program work, and
I find them to be reasonable herein.

        B.      Reasonable Number of Hours

       Attorneys’ fees are awarded for the “number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation.”
Avera, 515 F.3d at 1348. Counsel should not include in their fee requests hours that are “excessive,
redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Saxton, 3 F.3d at 1521 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.
424, 434 (1983)).

        Upon review of the submitted billing records, I find the time billed somewhat excessive for
interoffice communication. These issues have arisen in other cases handled by Mr. Shoemaker, where
counsel was admonished for excessive interoffice communication and the lack of detail regarding that
communication, as well as billing for clerical work. See Maciel v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No.
15-362V, 2019 WL 6249369, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 17, 2019); see also Oliver v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 10-394V, 2019 WL 2246727, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 16, 2019).
I find that a five percent reduction of attorneys’ fees for the time billed from 2018-2019 ($36,285.95)
is necessary to offset this issue. This results in a reduction of $1,814.30 from the work attributable to
The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Esq.

       Additionally, Petitioner requests compensation for services provided by Thetford & Thetford
LLC at a rate of $150.00 per hour, prior to filing her petition.4 I find that the rate and hours billed by
Thetford & Thetford are reasonable and require no reduction.


3
  The OSM Fee Schedules are available at: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/osm-attorneys-forum-hourly-rate-
fee-schedules. The hourly rates contained within the schedules are updated from the decision in McCulloch,
2015 WL 5634323.
4
 This amount was billed across three invoices (Invoice No. 1 - $4,732.50; Invoice No. 2 - $2,367.50; Invoice
No. 3 - $8,760.00). Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC Supporting Documentation at 85, 87, 91.

                                                         3
       Petitioner is therefore entitled to final attorneys’ fees in the amount of $84,694.95,
representing $68,834.95 in attorneys’ fees for The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Esq., and
$15,860.00 in attorneys’ fees for Thetford & Thetford.

         C.      Costs

        Like attorneys’ fees, a request for reimbursement of attorneys’ costs must be reasonable.
Perreira v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 27 Fed. Cl. 29, 34 (Fed. Cl. 1992). Petitioner requests a
total of $24,090.55 in attorneys’ costs comprised of acquiring medical records, photocopies, expert
services provided by Dr. Carlos Tornatore, M.D. for 40.5 hours at a rate of $450.00 per hour totaling
$18,225.00, and an invoice for services provided by Thetford & Thetford in the amount of $4,732.50.
Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC Supporting Documentation at 85, 91.

       The $4,732.50 expense for “Referring Counsel – Thetford & Thetford, LLC invoice 12100”
was included with Thetford & Thetford’s attorneys’ fees; therefore, this invoice may not also be
included with Ms. Gentry’s costs. See Pet’r’s Mot. for AFC Supporting Documentation at 21-22. This
duplicate expense will not be reimbursed.

       Petitioner has provided adequate documentation supporting the remaining costs and were
reasonably incurred in this case. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to final attorneys’ costs of
$19,358.05.

       Finally, Petitioner requests $402.31 in fees related to the prosecution of the case. This amount
includes the Court’s filing fee and postage. These costs are reasonable and shall be reimbursed in full.

   II.        Conclusion

        In accordance with the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §15(e) (2018), I have reviewed the billing
records and costs in this case and find that Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is reasonable. Based
on the above analysis, I find that it is reasonable to compensate Petitioner and his counsel as follows:


 The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry
 Attorneys’ Fees Requested                                                $70,649.25
 (Reduction of Fees)                                                      ($1,814.30)
 Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded                                            $68,834.95

 Attorneys’ Costs Requested                                               $24,090.55
 (Reduction of Costs)                                                     ($4,732.50)
 Total Attorneys’ Costs Awarded                                           $19,358.05

 Total Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
                                                                          $88,193.00
 (The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry)

 Thetford & Thetford LLC
 Attorneys’ Fees Requested                                                $15,860.00
                                                       4
    (Reduction of Fees)                                                         -
    Total Attorneys’ Fees Awarded
                                                                          $15,860.00
    (Thetford & Thetford LLC)

    Petitioner’s Personal Costs                                             $402.31
    (Reduction of Petitioner’s Costs)                                          -
    Total Petitioner’s Costs Awarded                                        $402.31

         Accordingly, I award the following:

             1) a lump sum in the amount of $88,193.00 representing reimbursement for
                Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by The Law Office of Renee J.
                Gentry, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Ms. Renée J. Gentry’s IOLTA
                account for prompt disbursement.

             2) a lump sum in the amount of $15,860.00 representing reimbursement for
                Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Thetford & Thetford LLC, to
                be paid through an ACH deposit to Ms. Renée J. Gentry’s IOLTA account for
                prompt disbursement.

             3) a lump sum of $402.31 for Petitioner’s personal costs to be paid through an ACH
                deposit to Ms. Renée J. Gentry’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement.

        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.5

                IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                      s/Herbrina Sanders Young
                                                      Herbrina Sanders Young
                                                      Special Master




5
  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.

                                                       5