VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00496
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00496
Petitioner: Ashley Beall
Filed: 2021-01-11
Decided: 2025-07-29
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-06-18
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 74250

AI-assisted case summary:
Ashley Beall filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 11, 2021, alleging she suffered a Table injury, specifically shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), as a result of a Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (Tdap) vaccine received on June 18, 2020. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit due to contested entitlement. Petitioner argued she met the Table criteria for SIRVA, seeking $88,000.00 for pain and suffering and $250.00 for unreimbursed expenses. Respondent disputed that the Table elements were met, specifically questioning whether the vaccine was administered in the injured left shoulder and if the pain and reduced range of motion were limited to that shoulder. Respondent recommended an award of $60,000.00 for pain and suffering if entitlement was found. After a hearing on June 27, 2025, the Chief Special Master issued an oral ruling adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court found that Petitioner established that the vaccine was received in her injured left shoulder, that her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to that shoulder, and that all other SIRVA Table requirements were met. Petitioner was found entitled to compensation. The court awarded a lump sum payment of $74,250.00, representing $74,000.00 for pain and suffering and $250.00 for unreimbursed expenses.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00496-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-07-29
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/27/2025) regarding 63 DECISION of Special Master, Ruling on Entitlement, Order on Motion for Ruling on the Record Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00496-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/25 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-496V
ASHLEY BEALL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 27, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Rochelle Ilana Gillenson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT AND DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 11, 2021, Ashley Beall 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 she suffered a Table injury – shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) - as the result of Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis
vaccine received on June 18, 2020. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters (the “SPU”). Because entitlement was
contested, the parties were ordered to file briefs addressing whether Petitioner has
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 1:21-vv-00496-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/25 Page 2 of 3
established a Table claim, and setting forth their respective arguments on damages
should I find entitlement in favor of Petitioner. ECF No. 52. The parties were subsequently
notified that I would resolve this dispute via an expedited “Motions Day” hearing, which
took place on June 27, 2025. Non-PDF Hearing Order issued June 17, 2025.
Petitioner argues she has established a Table claim for SIRVA pursuant to 42
C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(II)(C) and 100.3(c)(10) and seeks an award of $88,000.00 in
compensation for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering, plus $250.00 for unreimbursed
expenses. ECF No. 57. Respondent disputes that the Table elements have been met,
arguing that Petitioner has failed to establish that she received the Tdap vaccine in her
injured left shoulder, and thus cannot demonstrate that “pain and reduced range of motion
are limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered” pursuant
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(iii). ECF Nos. 51, 58. Otherwise, if I find that Petitioner has
established a Table case, Respondent recommends an award of $60,000.00 for pain and
suffering (but accepts the requested unreimbursed expenses). ECF No. 58. Petitioner
filed a Reply brief on September 18, 2024. ECF No. 59.
After considering 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 II (A) and
III (A) and (B)(1-2) of Thomas v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 22-1941V, 2025 WL
1082606, at *2-3; 5-7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 7, 2025) 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 review of the complete record as a whole and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine Act I find that
Petitioner has established that she received the relevant vaccine in her injured left
shoulder, has demonstrated that her “pain and reduced range of motion are limited to the
shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered,” and that all other SIRVA
Table requirements are met (see 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(II)(C), 100.3(c)(10)). Additionally,
Petitioner has established the other claim requirements listed in Section 11(c), i.e., receipt
of a covered vaccine, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(E). I therefore find that Petitioner
2

Case 1:21-vv-00496-UNJ Document 70 Filed 07/29/25 Page 3 of 3
is entitled to compensation in this case, and that $74,000.00 represents a fair and
appropriate amount of damages for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering.3
Accordingly, I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of $74,250.00
(representing $74,000.00 for pain and suffering and $250.00 for unreimbursed
expenses), to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA
account for prompt disbursement. 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 this amount is 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