VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00891
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00891
Petitioner: Paul Bishop
Filed: 2021-02-08
Decided: 2023-06-13
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2020-03-12
Condition: left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 56402

AI-assisted case summary:
Paul Bishop filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on March 12, 2020. SIRVA is a defined Table Injury. The respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing that Mr. Bishop had not met the statutory six-month residual effects requirement. However, after the Chief Special Master issued a fact ruling finding that Mr. Bishop had indeed suffered the residual effects for more than six months, the respondent filed an amended report. In this amended report, the respondent conceded that Mr. Bishop suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and did not dispute that all legal prerequisites for compensation had been satisfied. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, the Chief Special Master found Mr. Bishop entitled to compensation. Subsequently, a damages decision was issued based on a proffer from the respondent. The proffer indicated that Mr. Bishop should be awarded $56,402.85, which included $55,000.00 for pain and suffering, $982.41 for past expenses, and $420.44 for lost wages. Mr. Bishop agreed with this proffered award. The court awarded Mr. Bishop a lump sum payment of $56,402.85.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00891-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-04-17
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/14/2023) regarding 36 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, Scheduling Order. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/17/23 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0891V
UNPUBLISHED
PAUL BISHOP, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 14, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Site of Vaccination;
HUMAN SERVICES, Statutory Six Month Severity
Requirement; Tetanus, Diphtheria,
Respondent. acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange LLP, Rochester, NY, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
On February 8, 2021, Paul Bishop 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 he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on March 12, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1-2. He maintains
that his “symptoms have persisted for more than six months as required to establish
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 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 8
entitlement to compensation.” Id. at ¶ 2. Petitioner insists that the symptoms he
complained of in May 2022, and later, reflect a continuation of his SIRVA injury. Id. at ¶¶
13-15.
For the reasons discussed below, I find Petitioner received the Tdap vaccine in his
left arm as alleged, and has continued to suffer the residual effects of his alleged SIRVA
for more than six months. See Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity
requirement). However, any damages obtained in this case must take into account
Petitioner’s inability to connect treatment received in May 2022 (nearly two years after the
severity “deadline”) with his initial SIRVA.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Within a week of filing his Petition, Mr. Bishop filed the affidavit and medical records
required under the Vaccine Act. Exhibits 1-7, filed Feb. 15, 2021, ECF No. 6; see Section
11(c). On May 5, 2021, the case was activated and assigned to the Special Processing
Unit (OSM’s process for attempting to resolve certain, likely-to-settle claims). ECF No.
10.
Over the subsequent five months, Petitioner filed additional vaccine
documentation, and updated medical records. Exhibits 8-10, ECF Nos. 13, 20. On
December 28, 2021, Respondent charged that additional documentation regarding the
site and method of administration was needed, and that Petitioner had not established
that he suffered the residual effects of his alleged SIRVA injury for more than six months.
ECF No. 23. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a supplemental affidavit and updated medical
records. Exhibits 11-13, ECF Nos. 25, 29.
On August 18, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report, opposing
compensation in this case. ECF No. 33. Because Petitioner showed significant
improvement by his last physical therapy (“PT”) session on August 31, 2020, and failed
to mention any left shoulder pain when seeking treatment for other conditions during a
greater than 20-month period (from August 31, 2020, through May 3, 2022), Respondent
argues that he has failed to satisfy the statutory six-month requirement. Id. at 8-11. Other
than mentioning that the vaccine record does not indicate the site of vaccination (id. at 3),
he does not contend that Petitioner’s evidence is lacking on this issue.
II. Issue
At issue is whether Petitioner continued to suffer the residual effects of the SIRVA
for more than six months. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity
2

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/17/23 Page 3 of 8
requirement). Although Respondent no longer appears to be contesting the situs issue, I
find a ruling on this issue is also appropriate.
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.
Section 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 & Hum. 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 & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). However, this rule
does not always apply. “Written records which are, themselves, inconsistent, should be
accorded less deference than those which are internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April 25,
1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd
per curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the
patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The United States Court of Federal Claims has 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 & Hum. 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 v. Sec’y
3

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/17/23 Page 4 of 8
of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998) (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No. 90-2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998).
The credibility of the individual offering such fact testimony must also be determined.
Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bradley
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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.” Section 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 Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. 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. Findings of Fact
I make these situs and severity findings after a complete review of the record to
include all medical records, statements, declarations, briefing, and additional evidence
filed. Specifically, I base the findings on the following evidence:
• Prior to vaccination, Petitioner (then 47 years old and a paramedic) suffered
from common conditions and illnesses, including right knee pain since 2012,
for which he underwent surgery in 2019. Exhibit 3 at 732-33, 741.
• Petitioner received the Tdap vaccine at an appointment with his primary
care provider (“PCP”) on March 12, 2020. Exhibit 3 at 736, 746. The vaccine
record does not indicate the site or method of vaccination. Id.
• Nine days later, on March 21st, Petitioner emailed his PCP, complaining that
his “arm is still quite sore and certain motions are painful to the point of
difficulty – such as lifting the arm up to the level of the shoulder or extending
it out any angle.” Exhibit 7 at 4-5. Recalling that the nurse administered the
4

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/17/23 Page 5 of 8
vaccine higher than normal but acknowledging that it had been ten years
since his last Tdap vaccine, he asked if his pain was normal. He added that
he had no redness, swelling, or other signs of infection. Id. at 5. His PCP
replied that he should take over the counter pain medication and should
come to the office if not resolved within two to three days. Id. at 3.
• Slightly more than two weeks later, on April 6th, Petitioner again emailed his
PCP regarding his left arm pain, indicating he had finished all the prescribed
prednisone3 which reduced his pain to “almost nothing” for a few days but
caused him to gain weight. Exhibit 7 at 3. Describing his pain as a constant
ache that worsened with movement “such as lifting, doing yoga, or holding
the dog’s leash,” he asked if he could use the diclofenac gel he had
previously applied to his knee. Id. The PCP replied in the affirmative, asked
if he needed a prescription for additional gel, instructed him to come to the
office if not better in a week, and suggested a CT scan or MRI may be
needed. Id. It appears the PCP prescribed additional diclofenac gel the next
day. Exhibit 6 at 8.
• On April 22nd, Petitioner emailed his PCP a third time, complaining of
continued and regular left upper arm and shoulder/neck pain, despite using
the diclofenac gel for the last two weeks. Exhibit 7 at 2. Although he
attributed some of his shoulder/neck pain to “working at home,” he reported
that he “still ha[d] pain near the site of the injection and seemingly referring
from there up into the shoulder/neck.” Id. Stating that he normally would ask
for an appointment, imaging, and physical therapy (“PT”), he indicated he
was unsure of the appropriate next steps given the current worldwide
COVID pandemic. Replying that he was still seeing acute patients, the PCP
offered options of an appointment with him, PT, or a referral to an
orthopedist. Id.
• On May 5th, Petitioner participated in a telephonic appointment with one of
the orthopedists recommended by his PCP. Exhibit 3 at 767. He reported
left shoulder pain after receiving a tetanus shot in March – worsening with
overhead movement but unaccompanied by numbness or tingling. Id. The
orthopedist opined Petitioner was likely suffering from left shoulder rotator
cuff tendinitis and impingement syndrome and prescribed PT. Id.
3 It appears the PCP prescribed 10 prednisone tablets – 20 mg each, on March 27, 2020. Exhibit 6 at 8.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/17/23 Page 6 of 8
• At his initial PT session on May 19th, Petitioner complained of left shoulder
pain after receiving a wrong placement of a tetanus shot in his humeral
head. Exhibit 3 at 785. Describing this pain as throbbing and shooting down
his arm from the neck region, he rated its severity as currently two out of
ten – ranging from one at best and six at worst. Id. Upon examination, he
exhibited some mild limitations in range of motion (“ROM”). Id. at 786. The
findings were determined to be consistent with left shoulder impingement
and possible rotator cuff tendonitis. Id.
• At his next PT session on May 27th, Petitioner reported improvement in the
intensity and frequency of his pain but increased pain after driving for twelve
hours in one day and attempting to spread mulch. Exhibit 3 at 804. He was
observed to have smoother movement and increased ROM and strength
when performing the designated exercises. Id.
• When Petitioner returned to the orthopedist on June 2nd, he reported
improvement in his symptoms after attending PT, but still “some intermittent
discomfort related to activity” and endurance. Exhibit 3 at 818. He was noted
to have full ROM but pain at the limits. Id. at 819. Opining that Petitioner
should continue to show improvement with further PT, the orthopedist
suggested a steroid injection thereafter. However, he recognized
Petitioner’s reluctance to pursue that course of treatment due to his earlier
adverse reaction to the prescribed Medrol Dosepak. Id.
• During six additional PT sessions in June through August 2020, Petitioner
continued to report intermittent and mild to no pain which increased with
activities such as driving. Exhibit 3 at 836-38, 852-54, 866-89, 906-08, 938-
40, 983-84. At his last PT session on August 31st – 12 days before the six-
month mark - Petitioner reported pain at a level of one out of ten. He further
reported that he “only notices some mild shoulder pain when driving for
longer than a few hours or pushing himself out of the ambulance.” Id. at
983.
• Throughout the remainder of 2020 and 2021, Petitioner attended nine
appointments with specialists for treatment of a variety of conditions without
any mention of left shoulder pain. Exhibit 9. At his annual visit with his PCP
on March 17, 2021, he reported he was doing well except for some family
matters. Id. at 86. There is no mention of left shoulder pain in this record.
Id. at 75-103.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/17/23 Page 7 of 8
• On May 19, 2022 – more than 20 months after his last session in late August
2020, Petitioner returned to PT, reporting a recent flare up of his left
shoulder pain. Exhibit 12 at 1. Reporting pain which ranged from zero to six
out of ten, he indicated that he noticed his pain “for the past few weeks,”
especially when working as a paramedic, moving a stretcher, or transferring
a patient. Id.
Given the lack of situs designation in the vaccine documentation and dearth of
evidence supporting an alternative site, Petitioner’s consistent reports of left shoulder
following the Tdap vaccine beginning only nine days post-vaccination are sufficient to
support his assertion that he likely received the Tdap vaccine in his left arm, as alleged.
While these entries were based upon information provided by Petitioner, they still should
be afforded greater weight than more current representations, as they were uttered
contemporaneously with Petitioner’s injury for the purposes of obtaining medical care.4
Similarly, there is sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s contention that he
suffered the residual effects of his alleged SIRVA injury for more than six months. To
satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement in this case, Petitioner must show that he
suffered symptoms of his alleged SIRVA beyond September 12, 2020. The above medical
entries show that Petitioner was experiencing continued, albeit mild, symptoms of his
alleged left shoulder injury at his last PT session on August 31, 2020 – only twelve days
prior to the six-month mark. The level of his pain was one out of ten, and he continued to
experience pain primarily when driving for long periods of time and with movement. Given
that his symptoms remained at this mild level throughout PT sessions in June through
August, it is reasonable to conclude that Petitioner’s symptoms would have lasted at least
through September 12th – less than two weeks thereafter – even if there is not a medical
record specifically from that date or close to it.
However, Petitioner has failed to establish that the pain he experienced nearly two
years later, in May 2022, was a continuation of his earlier left shoulder pain and potential
SIRVA injury. During this significant gap in treatment – from late August 2020 through
May 2022, Petitioner made no mention of left shoulder pain. And when seeking treatment
in May 2022, he reported that he had noticed the pain only for the past few weeks.
Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to connect his later symptoms to the
SIRVA injury he is alleged to have suffered in early 2020.
4 The Federal Circuit has stated that “[m]edical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence . . . [as they] contain information supplied to or by health professionals to facilitate diagnosis and
treatment of medical conditions.” Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1528 (emphasis added). Thus, the Circuit has
instructed that greater weight should be accorded to this information even when the information is provided
by Petitioner.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 37 Filed 04/17/23 Page 8 of 8
V. Conclusion and Scheduling Order
Although the mild, intermittent nature of Petitioner’s pain does not prevent him from
satisfying the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement, it is relevant when determining any
compensation awarded. In light of my findings of fact, Petitioner should forward a
reasonable demand and supporting documentation to Respondent, and Respondent
should consider how he intends to proceed.
The Parties shall file a joint status report updating me on their efforts to
informally resolve this case and proposing their preferred next steps by no later
than Friday, April 28, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00891-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-12
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/08/2023) regarding 41 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/12/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0891V
UNPUBLISHED
PAUL BISHOP, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 8, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus, Diphtheria,
acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 8, 2021, Paul Bishop 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 he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on March 12, 2020. Petition at ¶¶ 1-2, 6. Petitioner
further alleges that he received the Tdap vaccine in the United States, that he suffered
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 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/12/23 Page 2 of 2
the residual effects of his SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither he nor any
other party has filed a civil case or received compensation for his SIRVA injury. Id. at ¶¶
2, 6, 16. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
Respondent initially opposed compensation, arguing that Petitioner had failed to
satisfy the statutory six-month requirement. Rule 4(c) Report at 8-11, filed August 18,
2022, ECF No. 33. After I issued a fact ruling on March 14, 2023, finding Petitioner had
suffered the residual effects of his alleged SIRVA Injury for more than six months (ECF
No. 36), Respondent filed an amended Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 40).
In his amended Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent indicates that, while reserving his
right to appeal my fact ruling, he “will not continue to contest that [P]etitioner suffered
SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 7.
Furthermore, “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the
findings of fact and conclusions of law, [he] does not dispute that that [P]etitioner has
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 7-8.
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_21-vv-00891-2
Date issued/filed: 2023-06-13
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/11/2023) regarding 44 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (tlf) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-0891V
UNPUBLISHED
PAUL BISHOP, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 11, 2023
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)
Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On February 8, 2021, Paul Bishop 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 he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table Injury, after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on March 12, 2020. Petition at ¶¶ 1-2, 6. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 8, 2023, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for his SIRVA injury. ECF No. 41. On May 11, 2023, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
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 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/13/23 Page 2 of 5
$56,402.85, representing compensation in the amounts of $55,000.00 for pain and
suffering, $982.41 for past expenses, and $420.44 for lost wages. Proffer at 2, ECF No.
43. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered
award.3 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 $56,402.85, representing compensation in the amounts of
$55,000.00 for pain and suffering, $982.41 for actual unreimburable expenses, and
$420.44 for lost wages 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 Although Respondent agrees that the amount of damages is appropriate, he reserves his right to appeal
my ruling regarding entitlement. Proffer at 2, 2 n.1.
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.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/13/23 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
PAUL BISHOP,
Petitioner,
No. 21-891V (ECF)
v.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On February 8, 2021, Paul Bishop (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2018) (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that he suffered a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine. ECF No. 1.
On August 18, 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed a
report contesting petitioner’s entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 33.
On March 14, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued findings of fact and conclusions of
law. ECF No. 36.
Based on the Chief Special Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, on May 5,
2023, respondent filed an amended report conceding that compensation under the Vaccine Act is
appropriate in this case. ECF No. 40.

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/13/23 Page 4 of 5
On May 8, 2023, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 41. On the same date, the Chief Special Master
issued a Damages Order. ECF No. 42.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$56,402.85, consisting of $55,000.00 in pain and suffering damages, $982.41 in past expenses,
and $420.44 in lost wages. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which
petitioner would be 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 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 following: a lump sum payment of $56,402.85, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.2
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
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 the 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 May 8, 2023 ruling on entitlement.
2 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 medical
expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00891-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/13/23 Page 5 of 5
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/ Naseem Kourosh
NASEEM KOUROSH
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Telephone: (202) 305-1159
E-mail: Naseem.Kourosh@usdoj.gov
DATED: May 11, 2023
3