VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00740
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00740
Petitioner: Sylvia Rowe
Filed: 2020-06-22
Decided: 2024-01-02
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2018-09-26
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50220

AI-assisted case summary:
Sylvia Rowe filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging a Table injury. She received a Tdap vaccine in her right deltoid on September 26, 2018, and subsequently developed a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). The primary dispute in the case was the situs of the Tdap vaccination, with the respondent initially arguing it was administered in the left shoulder based on an electronic record. However, the court found that the petitioner's contemporaneous medical records, her declaration explaining her request for separate vaccination sites, and consistent reporting of right shoulder pain following the Tdap vaccine provided preponderant evidence that the vaccine was administered in her right shoulder. The court determined that Ms. Rowe met all the criteria for a Table SIRVA claim, including no prior history of shoulder dysfunction, pain onset within 48 hours, and symptoms limited to the vaccinated shoulder without other explanatory conditions. Following the ruling on entitlement, the parties stipulated to an award of $50,220.00 for all damages. The decision was issued on January 2, 2024.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00740-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-08-18
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/14/2023) regarding 36 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-740V
SYLVIA ROWE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: July 14, 2023
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLMENT1
On June 22, 2020, Sylvia Rowe 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 injury - that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving a Tetanus Diphtheria acellular-Pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine in her right deltoid on September 26, 2018. Petition at 1; Ex. 16 at 1.3
1 Because this unpublished opinion 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 opinion 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).
3 Petitioner also filed a separate, second, Petition on August 28, 2020, alleging that she suffered a left-
sided SIRVA as a result of an influneza vaccination administered into her left deltoid on September 26,
2018 (at the same appointment at which she received the Tdap vaccination implicated in the instant case
(see Ex. 2 at 35)). That claim was informally settled between the parties, and I issued a Decision, pursuant

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 9
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters
(“SPU”).
After a full review of the evidence, I find it most likely that Petitioner received her
September 26, 2018 Tdap vaccination in her right deltoid or shoulder, has satisfied all
Table requirements for a right -sided S IRVA injury, and is otherwise entitled to
compensation for her right-sided SIRVA.
I. Relevant Procedural History
After the case’s initiation and SPU assignment, Respondent filed a Rule 4 Report
recommending that entitlement to compensation be denied under the terms of the
Vaccine Act. ECF No. 30. Specifically, Respondent argued that the vaccination record
indicates that Petitioner received her September 26, 2018 Tdap vaccination in her left
shoulder. ECF No. 29 at 6-7 (citing Pet. Ex. 1).
I therefore set deadlines for the filing of briefs addressing Petitioner’s entitlement
to compensation. ECF No. 32. On November 29, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling
on Record in support of this claim. ECF No. 34. On December 13, 2021, Respondent filed
an opposition brief arguing that right shoulder situs had not been established, and
therefore Petitioner could not demonstrate that her pain and reduced range of motion are
limited to the shoulder in which her intramuscular vaccine was administered. ECF No. 35
at 5-6 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii)). This matter is ripe for my resolution.
II. Authority
Before compensation can be awarded under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner must
demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, all matters required under Section
11(c)(1), including the factual circumstances surrounding his claim. Section 13(a)(1)(A).
In making this determination, the special master or court should consider the record as a
whole. Section 13(a)(1). Petitioner’s allegations must be supported by medical records or
by medical opinion. Id.
To resolve factual issues, the special master must weigh the evidence presented,
which may include contemporaneous medical records and testimony. See Burns v. Sec'y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that a special
master must decide what weight to give evidence including oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records). Contemporaneous medical records are presumed to
to the parties’ Stipulation, awarding Petitioner compensation on January 27, 2022. Rowe v. Sec'y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 20-1093V, 2022 WL 624045 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 27, 2022)
2

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 3 of 9
be accurate. See Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). To overcome the presumptive accuracy of medical records testimony, a
petitioner may present testimony which is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Sanchez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 11–685V, 2013 WL 1880825, at *3 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Blutstein v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90–
2808V, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)).
In addition to requirements concerning the vaccination received, the duration and
severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or settlement,4 a petitioner must
establish that she suffered an injury meeting the Table criteria, in which case causation
is presumed, or an injury shown to be caused-in-fact by the vaccination she received.
Section 11(c)(1)(C).
The most recent version of the Table, which can be found at 42 C.F.R. § 100.3,
identifies the vaccines covered under the Program, the corresponding injuries, and the
time period in which the particular injuries must occur after vaccination. Section 14(a).
Pursuant to the Vaccine Injury Table, a SIRVA is compensable if it manifests within 48
hours of the administration of a Tdap vaccine. 42 C.F. R. § 100.3(a)(I)(C). The criteria
establishing a SIRVA under the accompanying QAI are as follows:
Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). SIRVA manifests
as shoulder pain and limited range of motion occurring after the
administration of a vaccine intended for intramuscular administration in the
upper arm. These symptoms are thought to occur as a result of unintended
injection of vaccine antigen or trauma from the needle into and around the
underlying bursa of the shoulder resulting in an inflammatory reaction.
SIRVA is caused by an injury to the musculoskeletal structures of the
shoulder (e.g. tendons, ligaments, bursae, etc.). SIRVA is not a neurological
injury and abnormalities on neurological examination or nerve conduction
studies (NCS) and/or electromyographic (EMG) studies would not support
SIRVA as a diagnosis (even if the condition causing the neurological
abnormality is not known). A vaccine recipient shall be considered to have
suffered SIRVA if such recipient manifests all of the following:
(i) No history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder
prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
4 In summary, a petitioner must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered
either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited
exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, died from his injury, or
underwent a surgical intervention during an inpatient hospitalization; and has not filed a civil suit or collected
an award or settlement for her injury. Section 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E).
3

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 4 of 9
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection;
(ii) Pain occurs within the specified time-frame;
(iii) Pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the shoulder in which
the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and
(iv) No other condition or abnormality is present that would explain the
patient’s symptoms (e.g. NCS/EMG or clinical evidence of radiculopathy,
brachial neuritis, mononeuropathies, or any other neuropathy).
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10).
III. Relevant Factual Evidence
I have reviewed all evidence filed to date, but limit my discussion below to those
items most relevant to the disputed situs question. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). Based
upon a review of the entire record, including all medical records, declarations, and
additional evidence filed, I find that Petitioner’s September 26, 2018 Tdap vaccine was,
more likely than not, administered in her right deltoid. I base my finding on the following
evidence:
A. Records
• On September 26, 2018, Petitioner was seen by Dr. Andrea Ferrantino, MD, of
Clinton Medical Associates in Rochester, New York for an annual physical
examination. Ex. 2 at 28. At this appointment, Petitioner received both flu and Tdap
vaccines. Ex. 2 at 33, 35. The records corresponding to that visit document that
Petitioner was vaccinated at this time, but do not provide any additional information
regarding the vaccinations (situs, vaccination lot number, etc.). Id.
• A separate record from Clinton Medical Associates provides more detailed
information regarding Petitioner’s September 26, 2018 Tdap vaccination. That
record indicates that the “site” of Petitioner’s September 26, 2018 Tdap vaccination
was her “LD” or left deltoid. Ex. 1 at 2. The record is entirely electronic, or computer
generated.5
5 A similar record was filed in Petitioner’s left-sided SIRVA claim indicating that Petitioner’s flu vaccination
was also administered in her left deltoid. Rowe v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1093V, Ex.1.
Petitioner attempted to obtain a vaccine consent form in relation to her September 26, 2018 Tdap
vaccination, but none was produced. Ex. 11. A consent form related to Petitioner’s September 26, 2018 flu
4

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 5 of 9
• The next day, Petitioner emailed Dr. Ferrantino and reported that she “had a bad
reaction to the tet[a]nus and Flu vaccine[s] I was given yesterday. I was up all night
with severe pain in my right arm (tet[a]nus) and chills, nausea, cold sweats . . . the
pain in my arm kept me up all night.” Ex. 9 at 1; Ex. 15 at 1. Dr. Ferrantino
responded to Petitioner’s email indicating that she was “[s]orry to hear [Petitioner]
had such a bad reaction to [her] immunizations yesterday,” and noted that the
“tetanus shot can cause some soreness in the arm, but usually not such a systemic
reaction.” Id. Petitioner was advised to notify Dr. Ferrantino if she did “not continue
to improve.” Ex. 9 at 1.
• On October 1, 2018 (five days after her vaccinations), Petitioner was seen again
by Dr. Ferrantino for “a chief complaint of right upper arm [pain].” Ex. 2 at 25. The
medical record indicates that Petitioner “received [a] Tdap [vaccine] in right arm
last week.” Id. (emphasis added). The record further states that Petitioner had “a
lot of discomfort in her right arm” the night of her vaccination and “since then she
has had a persistent soreness in her right arm and difficulty with range of motion
of her right arm and right shoulder because of the pain.” Id. at 25-26. An
examination of Petitioner’s right shoulder demonstrated reduced range of motion,
tenderness and pain.” Id. at 26. Dr. Ferrantino assessed Petitioner with “right upper
arm/shoulder pain following TDAP Vaccine 1 week ago.” Id. at 27.
• On October 8, 2018, Petitioner sought care from an orthopedic provider, Karilynn
M. Cervini, NP (nurse practitioner), at the University of Rochester Medical Center
for a chief complaint of right shoulder pain. Ex. 3 at 20. Petitioner reported “that
she received a tetanus injection about 2 weeks ago and has had ongoing pain
since.” Id. Petitioner was assessed with “right shoulder rotator cuff tendonitis,
bursitis, impingement.” Id. at 21.
• On October 10, 2018, Petitioner underwent an initial evaluation for physical
therapy for her right shoulder. Petitioner reported her right shoulder pain “follow[ed]
a tetanus shot in R[ight] arm.” Ex. 4 at 17.
• On October 15, 2018, Petitioner was seen at Clinton Medical Associates by
Gregory W. Rosinski, PA, for bilateral shoulder pain. Ex. 2 at 20. The medical
record provided a history of Petitioner’s treatment with Dr. Ferrantino on October
1, 2018, for right shoulder pain following a “Tdap vaccine one week prior to the
right shoulder and the flu influneza vaccination at the left shoulder.” Id. Petitioner
vaccination was obtained and filed, however, that record contained no information regarding the site of
vaccination. Ex. 10 at 8.
5

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 6 of 9
reported to Mr. Rosinski that the “left shoulder was actually sore at the time of her
initial visit; however there was quite a bit more discomfort in the right shoulder so
the focus was there.” Id.
• On October 23, 2018, Petitioner was again by her orthopedics provider, Ms.
Cervini, “for further evaluation of her right shoulder.” Ex. 3 at 44. Ms. Cervini
provided a history that Petitioner was being seen “about 4 weeks after receiving a
tetanus injection into her right shoulder that caused her discomfort. She also
reports today that she has noticed pain in her left shoulder, she also received an
injection in that shoulder 4 weeks ago.” Id.
B. Declaration
Petitioner executed a signed and sworn declaration on November 23, 2021
addressing her September 26, 2018 Tdap and flu vaccinations. Ex. 16. In regard to the
administration of her vaccinations, Petitioner states:
I received the Tdap vaccine in my right shoulder, and the influenza vaccine
in my left shoulder. I specifically requested that each vaccine be given in a
different arm. I thought it made more sense to do it that way because I
figured it would ease the soreness, rather than having one arm get a shot
twice. I clarified that I had received the tetanus in the right arm when I
contacted my doctor via a MYCHART message the following day which was
September 27, 2018.
Ex. 16, ¶ 3.
IV. Findings of Fact
The only disputed factor in this case is whether Ms. Rowe received her Tdap
vaccination in her right shoulder, and therefore her “[p]ain and reduced range of motion
are limited to the [right] shoulder in which the intramuscular [Tdap] vaccine was
administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii).
Respondent argues that the vaccination record which indicates Petitioner received
both her Tdap and flu vaccinations in her “LD,” resolves this issue since that record
“explicitly” provides that the Tdap vaccine was administered in Petitioner’s left shoulder.
ECF No. 35 at 6. Although this contention has merit, it is overcome by a review of the
record in its totality.
6

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 7 of 9
As a preliminary matter, Petitioner’s vaccination record, relied upon by
Respondent, is entirely electronic, increasing the probability for error in regard to whether
a vaccination was administered in the “RD” or “LD,” in contrast to vaccine administration
records where the site is handwritten or circled on the record itself.6
As observed in other SIRVA cases, it is not unusual for the information maintained
on computerized forms regarding site of vaccination to be incorrect. See, e.g., Desai v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 14-811V, 2020 WL 4919777, at *14 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. July 30, 2020); Rodgers v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020
WL 1870268, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); Stoliker v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 17-0990V, 2018 WL 6718629, at *3-6 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Nov. 9,
2018). Thus, although such records are unquestionably the first-generated documents
bearing on issues pertaining to situs, they are not per se reliable simply because they
come first – and in fact the nature of their creation provides some basis for not accepting
them at face value, absent persuasive evidence that they reflect a treater's agency in
identifying situs.
Additionally, Petitioner’s declaration provides a reasonable explanation for why
she received her Tdap vaccination in her right shoulder. As noted above, she was to
receive two vaccines on September 26, 2018, and “I specifically requested that each
vaccine be given in a different arm. I thought it made more sense to do it that way because
I figured it would ease the soreness, rather than having one arm get a shot twice.” Ex. 16,
¶ 3. This is a logical and persuasive reason for why both vaccines would not likely have
been administered in the same arm.
There is also the fact of what was reported and recorded in numerous subsequent
records. As discussed in other decisions, consistent reporting to treating physicians that
a shoulder injury was associated with a vaccination received in the same shoulder can
serve as probative evidence sufficient to overcome a contradictory vaccination record.
See e.g., Desai, 2020 WL 4919777, at *13-14; Mogavero v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 18-1197V, 2020 WL 4198762, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 12, 2020);
Hanna v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 18-1455V, 2021 WL 3486248, at *9-10
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 15, 2021); Mezzacapo v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No.
18-1977V, 2021 WL 1940435, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Apr. 19, 2021).
6 The case offered by Respondent to support his position that the contemporaneous vaccine record
provides the most persuasive evidence – in contrast to later contemporaneous treatment records – involved
both an electronic medical record and a handwritten log providing the same description of the injection site.
Schmidt v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-1530V, 2021 WL 5226494, at *3, 8 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 7,
2021). As I explained in Schmidt, situs records that require specific action on the part of the vaccine
administrator, such as manually circling the situs or manually hand-writing the situs, are more reliable than
computerized or electronic records. Id., at *8-9.
7

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 8 of 9
In this case, beginning the day following her vaccine, Petitioner emailed her
primary care provider and reported a reaction to her vaccines. In addition to suffering a
more systemic, if transient, reaction, that she apparently attributed to both vaccinations,
she complained of pain in her right arm from the tetanus vaccine. Ex. 9 at 1; Ex. 15 at 1.
(Petitioner reported in her email “severe pain in my right arm (tetnus) [sic] and chills,
nausea, cold sweats”). Five days after, Petitioner was seen by her primary care provider
with a chief complaint of right shoulder pain, and the history in that record provides
Petitioner “received [a] Tdap [vaccine] in right arm last week” and “that evening” she
“noted feeling a lot of discomfort in her right arm.” Id. (emphasis added). Ex. 2 at 25.
Again, on October 10, 2018, Petitioner reported her shoulder pain “follow[ed] a tetanus
shot in R[ight] arm.” Ex. 4 at 17. Taken as a whole, 7 Petitioner’s contemporaneous
treatment records in the weeks following her vaccinations preponderantly demonstrate
that she most likely received her September 26, 2018 Tdap vaccine in her right shoulder.8
In light of this finding, I also find Petitioner has satisfied the third SIRVA QAI
criterion and established her “ [p]ain and reduced range of motion [from her Tdap
vaccination] are limited to the [right] shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was
administered.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii).
V. Other Table Requirements and Entitlement
Petitioner has established all other requirements for a Table SIRVA claim. There
is no history of shoulder pain, inflammation, or dysfunction that would explain the post-
7 I note that in his Rule 4 Report, Respondent points in passing to a record from an orthopedics encounter
on May 23, 2019, stating that Petitioner’s left shoulder adhesive capsulitis “appears to be a traumatic onset
associated with an injection of tetanus and flu shots.” Ex. 3 at 124-125. However, I note that this same
record from May 23, 2019 (approximately eight months after Petitioner’s vaccinations) also describes
symptoms in both Petitioner’s left and right shoulder, noting that the pain in her left shoulder was greater
than the pain in her right shoulder (at that time), and specifically indicates “[o]nset of symptoms are specific
to 09/26/2018, at which time she had a flu shot and tetanus shots in the shoulders” – implying she received
a vaccination in each of her shoulders. Id. at 124 (emphasis added). Additionally, an earlier treatment record
from this same provider (University of Rochester – Orthopedics), less than a month following her
vaccinations, documents a history of Petitioner’s right shoulder pain being associated with her tetanus
vaccination in the right shoulder. Ex. 3 at 44.
8 In cases where I have determined that a petitioner provided sufficient evidence to rebut the site of
administration listed in the vaccine record, the medical records demonstrated consistent and multiple
reports of pain attributed to the vaccination alleged as being administered in the injured shoulder, along
with efforts to obtain treatment close in time to vaccination. See, e.g., Gallo v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 18-1298V, 2019 WL 7496617, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 5, 2019); Rodgers v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 18-0559V, 2020 WL 1870268, at *3-4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2020); cf.
Marion v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0495V, 2020 WL 7054414, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr.
Oct. 27, 2020) (Petitioner failed to rebut the site of administration listed on the vaccine record when he did
not complain of pain in the allegedly injured shoulder until more than six months after vaccination, did not
attribute his shoulder pain to the vaccine until an additional three months thereafter, and sought medical
treatment for other conditions during the first six months after vaccination without mention of shoulder pain).
8

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 39 Filed 08/18/23 Page 9 of 9
vaccination injury. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(i). Her pain began within 48 hours after
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(I)(C), (c)(10)(ii). There is not preponderant evidence
of another condition that would explain the symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iv).
However, even if a petitioner has satisfied the requirements of a Table injury or
established causation-in-fact, he or she must also provide preponderant evidence of the
additional requirements of Section 11(c), i.e., receipt of a covered vaccine, residual
effects of injury lasting six months, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). But those
elements are established or undisputed in this claim. I therefore find that Petitioner is
entitled to compensation in this case.
Conclusion
Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table SIRVA. Petitioner is entitled to
compensation. A Damages Order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00740-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-01-02
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/28/2023) regarding 43 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 47 Filed 01/02/24 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-740V
SYLVIA ROWE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 28, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On June 22, 2020, Sylvia Rowe 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 injury - that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving a Tetanus Diphtheria Acellular-Pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine in her right deltoid on September 26, 2018. Petition at 1; Ex. 16 at 1. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On July 14, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA. On November 28, 2023, Respondent filed a proffer on award
of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $50,220.00. Proffer
at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 47 Filed 01/02/24 Page 2 of 4
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 $50,220.00 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.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 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 47 Filed 01/02/24 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
SYLVIA ROWE,
Petitioner, No. 20-740V
Chief Special Master Corcoran
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On November 29, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Factual Ruling, requesting that the
Chief Special Master find that the Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine
administered on September 26, 2018, was administered in her right shoulder, and therefore she is
entitled to compensation for a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) under
the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 et seq., for an injury listed in the Vaccine Injury Table, 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10) (2021). ECF No. 34 (“Motion”). Respondent filed his Response to
Petitioner’s Motion on December 13, 2021, recommending that entitlement to compensation be
denied. ECF No. 35. On July 14, 2023, the Court issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 36.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief 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 Chief Special
Master’s July 5, 2022, entitlement decision.

Case 1:20-vv-00740-UNJ Document 47 Filed 01/02/24 Page 4 of 4
$50,220.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).2 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 of $50,220.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner agrees.
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
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Alexa Roggenkamp
ALEXA ROGGENKAMP
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
(202) 616-4179
alexa.roggenkamp@usdoj.gov
Dated: November 28, 2023
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2