VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00054
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00054
Petitioner: Andrea H. Olson
Filed: 2021-01-05
Decided: 2022-12-19
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-08-28
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 53785

AI-assisted case summary:
Andrea Olson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of a Tdap vaccination she received on August 28, 2020. She further alleged that she has suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. The respondent conceded that Petitioner is entitled to compensation, stating that her injury satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for SIRVA. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, the Chief Special Master found Petitioner entitled to compensation. Subsequently, a decision awarding damages was issued. The respondent's Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer indicated that Petitioner should be awarded $53,785.00, and Petitioner agreed with this proffered award. The court awarded Andrea Olson a lump sum payment of $53,785.00, representing compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00054-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-16
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/16/2022) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement, ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00054-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 2
CORRECTED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0054V
UNPUBLISHED
ANDREA H. OLSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 16, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Rhonda Lorenz-Pignato, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Emily H. Manoso, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 5, 2021, Andrea Olson 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Tdap vaccination she received on August 28,
2020. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she has suffered the residual effects of
her injury for more than six months. Petition at ¶23. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On November 15, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer (“Rule
4/Proffer”) in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
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 1:21-vv-00054-UNJ Document 42 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 2
Respondent’s Rule 4/Proffer at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “it is Respondent’s
position that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table
(“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA. Id. at 5.
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 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00054-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-12-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/16/2022) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(mpj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00054-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0054V
UNPUBLISHED
ANDREA H. OLSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: November 16, 2022
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)
Rhonda Lorenz-Pignato, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Emily H. Manoso, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 5, 2021, Andrea Olson 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 that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Tdap vaccination she received on August 28,
2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.
On November 15, 2022, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer (“Rule
4/Proffer”). ECF No. 36. On November 16, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued,
finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for her SIRVA. Respondent’s Rule 4/Proffer
indicates that Petitioner should be awarded $53,785.00. Rule 4/Proffer at 6. In the Rule
4/Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id.
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 1:21-vv-00054-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 2
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 Rule 4/Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum
payment of $53,785.00 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