VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00017
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00017
Petitioner: Anthony Lawler
Filed: 2019-01-03
Decided: 2020-11-10
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2017-07-12
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 40000

AI-assisted case summary:
Anthony Lawler filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging a Table claim for a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on July 12, 2017. The petition was filed on January 3, 2019. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, initially preserved the right to appeal findings of fact but ultimately conceded that Mr. Lawler had satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as a Table injury. The court issued a ruling on entitlement on August 27, 2020, finding that Mr. Lawler was entitled to compensation. Subsequently, on November 10, 2020, a decision awarding damages was issued based on a proffer. The respondent proffered that Mr. Lawler should be awarded $40,000.00 for pain and suffering, which Mr. Lawler agreed to. The court awarded this lump sum payment to Mr. Lawler.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00017-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-07-27
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/24/2020) regarding 24 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law,, Scheduling Order, Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0017V
UNPUBLISHED
ANTHONY LAWLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 24, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Onset; Tetanus
HUMAN SERVICES, Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
John Robert Howie, Jr., Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On January 3, 2019, Anthony Lawler filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges a Table claim that he suffered a left shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on July 12, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 20. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished fact ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the fact ruling will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 7
For the reasons discussed below, I find the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain
occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Specifically, Petitioner suffered left shoulder pain
immediately upon vaccination.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Shortly after filing his petition, Anthony Lawler filed the required medical records.
Exhibits 1-11, ECF Nos. 6-7; Statement of Completion, ECF No. 8. Following the initial
status conference, Respondent was ordered to provide his tentative position on the merits
of Petitioner’s claim. Order, issued May 17, 2019, ECF No. 11.
On January 24, 2020, Respondent indicated he opposed compensation in this
case. Status Report, ECF No. 17. In his Rule 4(c) report, he argues that Petitioner has
failed to establish that the onset of his left shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of
vaccination and that there appears to be an alternative cause for Petitioner’s symptoms.
ECF No. 18. Regarding onset, Respondent mentions two instances in the medical records
when Petitioner provided imprecise information regarding the onset of his pain and one
instance when he mistakenly indicates his vaccination occurred on July 1, rather than
July 12, 2017. Id. at 5-6.
Thereafter, the parties were informed that I intended to address the factual issue
of onset. Informal Remark, dated Mar. 27, 2020. During the subsequent week, Petitioner
filed documentation disclosing his work schedule from July 1 through September 30,
20173 and updated medical records from physical therapy (“PT”) he attended
approximately one year after vaccination. Exhibit 12, Mar. 30, 2020, ECF No. 19; Exhibit
13, filed Apr. 2, 2020, ECF No. 20. A briefing schedule was set. Non-pdf Order, issued
Apr. 8, 2020.
Both parties filed their briefs on May 26, 2020. Respondent’s brief reiterates the
arguments set forth in his Rule 4(c) report. ECF No. 21. Petitioner addresses these
arguments in his brief, asserting that “Respondent has cherry-picked three statements
which are taken out of context and which fail to rebut the entirety of the evidence.”
Petitioner’s Brief Regarding Onset at 5, ECF No. 22. Petitioner discusses the additional
information contained in these records. Id. at 7-9. He also maintains that multiple physical
examinations performed by different treating physicians support his description of a
painful bump at the vaccination’s injection site. Id. at 9-10. While acknowledging that he
may have occasionally been a poor historian, Petitioner argues that he “consistently
related his left shoulder symptoms to his Tdap vaccination.” Id. at 10.
3 Petitioner is in the merchant marines. E.g., Petition at 3. These records show he was on the vessel Jane
A. Bouchard from July 19, 2017 through August 9, 2017 and September 9 through 30, 2017. Exhibit 12.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 7
Petitioner makes these same arguments in his response filed on June 10, 2020.
Petitioner’s Response Brief Regarding Onset (“Pet. Response”), ECF No. 23. In both
filings, he also disputes Respondent’s statement of the facts in the case.4
The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner’s first symptom or manifestation of onset after
vaccine administration (specifically pain) occurred within 48 hours as set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table
SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) I.C & II.C. (2017) (Tdap vaccination); 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required onset for pain listed in the QAI).
III. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
§ 13(b)(1). “Medical 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 & Human Servs.,
993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. In Lowrie, the special master wrote that “written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Lowrie, at *19.
4 For example, Petitioner maintains he was not seen by his cardiologist on August 2, 2017, approximately
three weeks after vaccination and two weeks before he was seen at urgent care for his left shoulder pain
as Respondent asserts. Pet. Response at 1 n.1. A careful examination of the record cited by Respondent
shows this entry is part of a progress note compiled on August 2, 2017, but was copied from the record of
a March 28, 2017 visit. Compare Exhibit 6 at 161 (entry cited by Respondent) with id. at 146 (history in
medical record from March 23, 2017 visit). Additionally, the work schedule provided by Petitioner shows he
was at sea on August 2, 2017. Exhibit 12 at 2.
3

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 7
The United States Court of Federal Claims has recognized that “medical records
may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 42 Fed.
Cl. 381, 391 (1998). The Court later outlined four possible explanations for
inconsistencies between contemporaneously created medical records and later
testimony: (1) a person’s failure to recount to the medical professional everything that
happened during the relevant time period; (2) the medical professional’s failure to
document everything reported to her or him; (3) a person’s faulty recollection of the events
when presenting testimony; or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of symptoms that did
not exist. La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203-04 (2013),
aff’d, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by testimony that
is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.” Camery, 42 Fed.
Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL
408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998). The credibility of the individual offering
such testimony must also be determined. Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569
F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d
1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
A special master may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an
injury occurred “within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though
the occurrence of such symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly
recorded as having occurred outside such period.” § 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may be
made only upon demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of the
injury] . . . did in fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table.”
Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other “relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record.” La
Londe, 110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing § 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the
special master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical
records or to other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question
that was given at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
IV. Finding of Fact
I make the finding regarding onset after a complete review of the record to include
all medical records, affidavits, Respondent’s Rule 4(c) report, additional evidence, and
briefing by the parties. Specifically, I base the finding on the following evidence:
• The vaccine record establishes that Anthony Lawler was administered a
Tdap vaccine intramuscularly in his left deltoid on July 12, 2017. Exhibit 2.
4

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 7
• The documentation provided by Petitioner indicates that he was at sea,
aboard the Jane A. Bouchard, from July 17, 2017 (five days after
vaccination) until August 9, 2017. Exhibit 12 at 1-2.
• Eight days after disembarking, on August 17, 2017, Petitioner visited an
urgent care facility complaining of a lump in his upper left arm, intermittent,
sharp, and stabbing pain with movement, and discomfort with range of
motion past 90 degrees. Exhibit 9 at 12-15. Petitioner reported that his
symptoms began one month prior and that his lump has been evident for
about a month. Id. at 13, 15. Denying any injury or trauma such as pulling
or pushing which would have caused his injury, Petitioner attributed his
lump and left shoulder pain to the tetanus booster he received on July 17,
2017. Id.
• When Petitioner was seen by the orthopedic surgeon on September 8,
2017, he reported that his symptoms began in early July, and that he “felt
[his injury] may be tetanus shot related.” Exhibit 10 at 10. He added that
“[s]ince that time, his symptoms have progressed and are now present on
a daily basis.” Id. The orthopedic surgeon noted Petitioner “has an
associated lump or deformity in the anterior aspect of the deltoid area.” Id.
• At his third appointment with the orthopedic surgeon on November 6, 2017,
Petitioner again linked his injury to the Tdap vaccine he received in July.
Exhibit 10 at 65. This record notes that Petitioner “is very adamant that his
shoulder pain is most likely the result of an improperly performed tetanus
injection.” Id.
• When seen for a prostrate exam on February 14, 2018, Petitioner related
“having received a tetanus shot in his left shoulder that caused him severe
pain and bursitis which necessitated a cortisone shot.” Exhibit 5 at 9. He
expressed concern regarding future vaccinations. Id.
• During his initial PT evaluation on June 4, 2018, Petitioner again attributed
his left shoulder pain to the “tetanus shot he received about 6 months or a
year ago in the left side.” Exhibit 13 at 7. According to Petitioner, “[r]ight
after he had a tetanus shot, he had some pain in the arm which he expected,
but then the pain got worse and he reported feeling a sharp pain in the front
of the shoulder” with certain movement. Id.
• The physical therapist observed some tenderness in the left deltoid region
and a bump on Petitioner’s left deltoid. Exhibit 13 at 8. He described the
bump as feeling fluid filled. Petitioner reported that the bump “has been
there since the tetanus shot.” Id.
The above medical entries show that Petitioner consistently connected his left
shoulder injury to the Tdap vaccine he received on July 12, 2017, reporting pain and a
lump since that time. Although not always precise when describing the onset of his pain
5

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 7
or timeframe since vaccination, he clearly expressed his belief that it was caused by the
tetanus shot he received.
Petitioner provided better detail regarding the onset of his pain during his initial PT
evaluation. He described immediate pain which increased thereafter. Additionally,
multiple physicians and his physical therapist observed the lump on Petitioner’s left
deltoid, his tenderness, and his pain with movement.
Respondent correctly notes that when first seen by the orthopedic surgeon on
September 8, 2017, Petitioner wrote on the intake form that his problem began on July 1,
2017 (which if true would predate vaccination). Exhibit 10 at 3. However, in this same
record, it is noted that he verbally informed the surgeon that he believed his injury was
linked to the Tdap vaccine he had received. Id. at 10. Petitioner most likely provided the
July 1 date because he could not recall the exact date of his vaccination. In the history he
provided verbally, he described the onset of his symptoms as “in early July.” Id. I thus do
not find that this specification of July 1st for onset undermines Petitioner’s arguments
about a post-vaccination, fairly immediate onset.
Respondent’s other two critiques are similarly unpersuasive. Respondent stresses
that during Petitioner’s initial visit to urgent care on August 17, 2017, he described his
pain as beginning one month earlier even though his vaccination was actually five weeks
earlier on July 12, 2017. Exhibit 9 at 13. When first evaluated by the physical therapist on
June 4, 2018, almost eleven months after vaccination, he indicated he had received the
tetanus shot six months to one year ago. Exhibit 13 at 7. In both instances, Petitioner is
simply being imprecise when providing these time frames. Both records contain other
entries showing Petitioner clearly tied the onset of his pain and lump to the Tdap vaccine
he received. For example, in the same June 4, 2018 PT record, Petitioner unequivocally
states that he experienced pain right after receiving the tetanus shot and that the lump
existed since vaccination. Id. at 7-8.
Accordingly, I find there is preponderant evidence to establish the onset of
Petitioner’s left shoulder pain occurred immediately upon vaccination. Petitioner has
satisfied the requirement for a Table SIRVA, that the onset of her shoulder pain began
within 48 hours of vaccination.
V. Scheduling Order
Given my finding of fact regarding the onset of Petitioner’s pain, Respondent
should evaluate and provide his current position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s case.
Respondent shall file a status report indicating how he intends to proceed in
this case by no later than Friday, July 24, 2020. At a minimum, the status report shall
indicate whether he is willing to engage in tentative discussions regarding settlement or
proffer, is opposed to negotiating at this time, or that the Secretary has not yet determined
his position. In the event Respondent wishes to file a Rule 4(c) report, he may propose
a date for filing it, but shall indicate his position on entering into negotiations regardless
of whether he wishes to file a Rule 4(c) report.
6

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 27 Filed 07/27/20 Page 7 of 7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00017-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-09-30
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 08/27/2020) regarding 30 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0017V
UNPUBLISHED
ANTHONY LAWLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 27, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Table Injury;
HUMAN SERVICES, Tetanus Diphtheria acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 3, 2019, Anthony Lawler filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges a Table claim that he suffered a left shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on July 12, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 20. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 32 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 2
On June 24, 2020, I made a factual finding, determining there is preponderant
evidence to establish that Petitioner’s manifestation of onset after vaccine administration
occurred within 48 hours. Fact Ruling at 2, 6, ECF No. 24.
Respondent has filed an amended Rule 4 report indicating that “[w]hile preserving
his right to appeal the Chief Special Master’s June 24, 2020 Findings of Fact,
[R]espondent submits that [P]etitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the
Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA.”
Rule 4 Report, filed Aug. 25, 2020, at 2, ECF No. 29 (citing 42 C.F.R §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)
and (c)(10) (applicable portions of Vaccine Table and QAI)). Respondent adds that
“based on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the Findings of
Fact, [R]espondent does not dispute that [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites
for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00017-2
Date issued/filed: 2020-11-10
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/09/2020) regarding 34 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-0017V
UNPUBLISHED
ANTHONY LAWLER, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 9, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Tetanus Diphtheria acellular
Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder
Respondent. Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 3, 2019, Anthony Lawler filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged a Table claim that he suffered a left shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on July 12, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 2019. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 27, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for his SIRVA. On October 9, 2020, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $40,000.00
representing compensation for his pain and suffering. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer,
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 5
Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on
the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $40,000.00 representing compensation for Petitioner’s pain and
suffering in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
____________________________________
)
ANTHONY LAWLER, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 19-17V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND )
HUMAN SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 3, 2019, Anthony Lawler (“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-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on July 12, 2017. Petition at 1. On
August 25, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c)
Report requesting a ruling on the record regarding petitioner’s entitlement to compensation. On
August 27, 2020, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement finding petitioner
entitled to compensation.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $40,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 5
This amount 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 Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following1: a lump sum payment of $40,000.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Anthony Lawler: $40,000.00
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK
Acting Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
1 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.
2

Case 1:19-vv-00017-UNJ Document 39 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 5
s/Christine Mary Becer
CHRISTINE MARY BECER
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) 616-3665
DATED: October 9, 2020
3