VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00473
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00473
Petitioner: John Bradberry
Filed: 2020-04-20
Decided: 2024-08-09
Vaccine: pneumococcal conjugate
Vaccination date: 2018-11-17
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 55415

AI-assisted case summary:
John Bradberry filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that after receiving a pneumococcal conjugate (Prevnar-13) vaccine on November 17, 2018, he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). He claimed this condition was listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit due to contested entitlement. Petitioner argued he met the Table SIRVA requirements and sought $115,000.00 for past pain and suffering and $415.00 for past unreimbursable expenses. Respondent contested entitlement, specifically questioning whether the injury and its residual effects lasted more than six months and whether pain onset occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Respondent recommended an award of $45,000.00 for pain and suffering and $240.00 for expenses if entitlement was found. After an oral ruling on August 9, 2024, the Chief Special Master found that Petitioner established an injury and residual effects lasting over six months, onset of pain within 48 hours, and all other Table SIRVA requirements. Consequently, Petitioner was awarded $55,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $415.00 for past unreimbursable expenses, totaling $55,415.00.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00473-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-09-10
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/09/2024 ) regarding 61 Ruling on Entitlement, DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00473-UNJ Document 67 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0473V
JOHN BRADBERRY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 9, 2024
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.
Elizabeth Andary, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 20, 2020, John Bradberry 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 that after receipt of a pneumococcal conjugate
(“Prevnar-13”) vaccine on November 17, 2018, he suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), corresponding to a listing on the Vaccine Injury Table
(the “Table”). Petition at 1; see also 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10).
1 Because this Ruling and Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it
must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,
and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the
internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from
public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-00473-UNJ Document 67 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 3
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters. Because entitlement was contested, the parties were ordered to file briefs
addressing whether Petitioner has established a Table SIRVA claim, and in the event that
I resolved entitlement in Petitioner’s favor, setting forth their respective arguments on
damages. The parties were subsequently notified that I would resolve this dispute via an
expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which ultimately took place on August 9, 2024.
Petitioner argues that he has established a Table SIRVA, and is entitled to an
award of $115,000.00 in past pain and suffering plus $415.00 in past unreimbursable
expenses. See generally ECF Nos. 54, 57.
Respondent maintains that Petitioner has not preponderantly established that his
injury or its residual effects for more than six months post-vaccination, as required for
eligibility under the Program. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)). Respondent also disputes one Table
SIRVA requirement – specifically whether Petitioner has preponderantly established the
onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccination as required for a Table SIRVA. C.F.R. §§
100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10)(ii). But if I find Petitioner entitled to compensation for a
Table SIRVA, Respondent recommends an award of $45,000.00 for past pain and
suffering, and $240.00 in unreimbursable expenses. See generally ECF No. 55.
After listening to the arguments of both sides, I issued an oral ruling on entitlement
and damages constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Section
12(d)(3)(A). An official recording of the proceeding was taken by a court reporter, although
a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully adopt and incorporate that
oral ruling as officially recorded. In another recent decision I discussed at length the legal
standards to be considered in determining entitlement and damages and prior SIRVA
compensation within SPU. I incorporate herein my prior discussion in Sections V - VII of
Crawford v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 19-0544V, 2024 WL 1045147, at *12-22
(Fed. Cl. Feb. 5, 2024) to the instant Ruling and Decision. Additionally, the official
recording of my oral ruling includes my discussion of various comparable cases as well
as specific facts relating to Petitioner’s medical history and experience that further
informed my resolution of this matter.
Based on my consideration of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A) I find that Petitioner has
established an injury and residual effects lasting for over six months after the vaccination,
that he suffered the onset of pain within 48 hours of his vaccination, and all other SIRVA
Table requirements pursuant to 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10). Additionally,
Petitioner has established the additional requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a
covered vaccine. See generally § 11(c)(1). I therefore find that Petitioner is entitled to
2

Case 1:20-vv-00473-UNJ Document 67 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 3
compensation in this case, and that a fair and appropriate damages award is $55,000.00
for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering, plus $415.00 for Petitioner’s past
unreimbursable expenses.3
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $55,415.00
(representing $55,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, and $415.00 for
unreimbursable past medical expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Since these amounts are being awarded for actual, rather than projected, pain and suffering, no reduction
to net present value is required. See Section 15(f)(4)(A); Childers v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
96-0194V, 1999 WL 159844, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 5, 1999) (citing Youngblood v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., 32 F.3d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
4 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.
3