VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00904
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00904
Petitioner: Muhand Haddad
Filed: 2021-02-10
Decided: 2025-06-24
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2019-07-02
Condition: left-sided Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Muhand Haddad filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 10, 2021, alleging a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from a Tdap vaccine received on July 2, 2019. The case proceeded as a Table claim. The primary dispute was whether the onset of Petitioner's shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, as required for a Table SIRVA claim. Petitioner stated he felt immediate pain and a sensation of the needle hitting something hard upon vaccination, with pain progressively worsening throughout the day and into the following days. While Petitioner did not seek treatment for his shoulder pain until over five months later, and did not explicitly link it to the vaccine until December 12, 2019, the court found that the totality of the evidence, including Petitioner's declarations and later medical records, supported an onset close in time to the vaccination. The court noted that delays in seeking treatment for SIRVA are common and do not automatically preclude a finding of Table onset. The court concluded that it is more likely than not that the onset of Petitioner's shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. However, the court also noted that remaining issues regarding pre-existing symptoms and alternative explanations for the condition would need to be addressed. The decision granted entitlement on the onset issue but left other criteria and damages to be determined.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00904-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-06-24
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 05/22/2025) regarding 37 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-904V
MUHAND HADDAD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: May 22, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Rhonda Lorenz-Pignato, Shannon Law Group, PC, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Nina Ren, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FACT RULING ON ONSET1
On February 10, 2021, Muhand Haddad (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.
§300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”), alleging that he suffered a left-sided Table
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus-
diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered to him on July 2, 2019.3 Pet.
at 1, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters (the “SPU”). For the reasons set forth below, I find it more likely than not
1 Because this Ruling 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 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 (2018).
3 Petitioner alleges an injury as a result of a Tdap vaccination received “on or about July 3, 2019.” Pet. ¶ 2.
However, in his Response to my Order to Show Cause, Petitioner highlights that his records were later
corrected to reflect the correct date of vaccination as July 2, 2019. See Response at 1, n.1; see also Ex.
2.2 at 4 (ECF No. 9-2). While not a disputed issue, the administration of the subject vaccine appears more
likely than not to have occurred on July 2, 2019, as later alleged. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 103-06.

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 2 of 10
that the onset of Petitioner’s shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination, as
alleged.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report defending this case in November 2023.
Respondent’s Report, ECF No. 32. Respondent made a number of arguments against
Petitioner’s Table SIRVA claim,4 including that Petitioner’s medical records do not
attribute the onset of his pain to the subject vaccination until over five months after, but
that he attended seven visits with treaters during this interim period. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 4
at 75, 80-82, 84, 89, 92; Ex. 2.25 at 17-18, 44; Ex. 5 at 18, 59). More so, when the records
first mention shoulder pain (in December 2019), they do not describe its onset as
occurring within 48 hours of vaccination. Id. (citing Ex. 4 at 75).
After a review of the record and Respondent’s arguments, I issued an Order to
Show Cause, outlining the critical issues related to Petitioner’s ability to satisfy the Table’s
48-hour onset requirement and affording him an opportunity to submit any additional
evidence to remedy this deficiency in the record.6 ECF No. 34. In response, Petitioner
submitted his own supplemental declaration, two medical records, and a written response
brief (“Response”). ECF Nos. 35-36. The onset dispute is now ripe for consideration.
II. 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,
4 Respondent also contested both the first and fourth QAI requirements for a Table SIRVA claim (lack of
pre-existing symptoms in the vaccinated shoulder and the presence of another condition or abnormality
that could explain the post-vaccination condition) and argued that the records show that Petitioner was
evaluated and treated for intermittent left shoulder pain beginning in January 2019 (six months prior to the
subject vaccination). Respondent’s Report at 7 (citing Ex. 4 at 123). Such treatment temporally followed a
motor vehicle accident (“MVA”) – although Petitioner reported that such left shoulder pain began prior to
the MVA. See id. Petitioner was subsequently diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy and treated with
physical therapy (“PT”) until February 2019, at which time he had residual pain and tightness. Id. (citing Ex.
4 at 123; Ex. 5 at 79-156). I will note, however, these arguments were not the bases on which Respondent
disputed Petitioner’s onset contentions. See id.
5 While this exhibit is labeled as “Exhibit 2.2,” it is filed using the label “Exhibit 3.2.” See ECF No. 9-3. I will
refer to this exhibit (ECF No. 9-3) using the label on the document itself – Exhibit 2.2.
6 I also noted that – while not the basis for my Order to Show Cause – Respondent’s remaining objections
regarding Petitioner’s pre-vaccination history, and the presence of another condition or abnormality
(cervical radiculopathy) that could explain Petitioner’s post-vaccination symptomology, had some merit and
could likewise ultimately preclude Petitioner from establishing a Table SIRVA claim, although it would
require additional fact development to assess the strength of these objections.
2

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 3 of 10
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, the
Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as incorrect the presumption that medical records
are always accurate and complete as to all of the patient’s physical conditions.” Kirby v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Medical
professionals may not “accurately record everything” that they observe or may “record
only a fraction of all that occurs.” Id.
The Court 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 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 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).
Indeed, 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.
3

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 4 of 10
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 § 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).
III. Relevant Factual Evidence
I make this finding after a complete review of the record to include all medical
records, declarations, and additional evidence filed, and in particular the following:7
• Petitioner received the Tdap vaccine alleged as causal on July 2, 2019,8
while at a visit for chest pain and tingling with his primary care physician
(“PCP”). Ex. 2 at 1; Ex. 4 at 103-06.
• Petitioner has stated that upon receiving the vaccination, he “immediately
had a feeling like the needle had hit something hard in [his] shoulder and
[he] experienced some immediate pain.” Ex. 1 ¶ 6. He notes that “as the
day went on,” he “began to experience more pain in [his] left shoulder and
some restrictions in the range of motion [(“ROM”)].” Id. ¶ 8. He tried
unsuccessfully to self-treat with cold packs, Tylenol, and stretching; instead,
the pain “progressively got worse.” Id. ¶¶ 9-10; Ex. 12 ¶¶ 5-6.
• Six days post-vaccination, on July 8, 2019, Petitioner had an appointment
with a cardiologist to address his chest pain and palpitations. Ex. 4 at 92.
The contemporaneous medical records do not show that Petitioner
mentioned complaints of shoulder pain during this visit. See id. The records
do, however, memorialize that Petitioner reported bilateral arm tingling that
had been “occurring for years.” Id. Later that month, on July 12, 2019,
Petitioner underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram, during which he also
made no complaints of left shoulder pain. Ex. 5 at 59.
7 While I have reviewed all the evidence filed to-date in this case, only evidence related to onset will be
discussed herein, though other facts may be provided as necessary.
8 See supra, note 3 (explaining the date of vaccine administration being on July 2, 2019, as ultimately
alleged).
4

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 5 of 10
• On September 6, 2019, Petitioner followed up with his PCP for chest pain
and was subsequently sent to the emergency room. Ex. 4 at 89. He did not
mention left shoulder complaints during this visit. See id. Throughout the
rest of September, Petitioner saw his cardiologist (on September 17, 2019)
with complaints of shortness of breath. Id. at 84. On September 25, 2019,
at the direction of his cardiologist, Petitioner underwent an exercise stress
test. Ex. 5 at 18. He likewise did not complain of left shoulder symptoms at
any of these visits.
• Petitioner returned to his PCP on November 14, 2019, with a “chief
complaint” of “abdominal pain.” Ex. 4 at 80. Petitioner also reported
“discomfort in the left upper arm” but “denie[d] pain in the shoulders.” Id. A
physical examination revealed normal ROM, normal muscle strength and
tone, no swelling, erythema, or “discomfort or tenderness on palpation of
the bilateral upper arms.” Id. at 82. The “other visit diagnoses” lists “left
upper arm pain.” Id.
• Petitioner contends (in his original affidavit) that during his July 8,
September 6, and November 14, 2019 visits with his PCP,9 he “complained
. . . about the left shoulder pain [he] was still having since getting that
tetanus shot, however [the treater’s] care seemed to be focused on [his]
other health complaints and not on [his] shoulder.” Ex. 1 ¶ 10.
• In his second declaration, drafted in response to my Order to Show Cause,
Petitioner elaborated on this, maintaining that by his July 8, 2019 cardiology
visit, he “knew that [his] shoulder pain was caused by the vaccination and
that it didn’t have anything to do with [his] heart. Since [the physician] was
a cardiologist and did not treat shoulders, [he] focused on discussing [his]
chest pains[.]” Ex. 12 ¶ 9. Additionally, since this visit was only a week after
the subject vaccination, Petitioner “still thought the pain would go away on
its own, with time and self-treatment.” Id. Likewise, he contends that his
treater “stayed focused on addressing the serious issue of [his] chest pains”
(and later scrotal pain) during his September 6, November 14, and
December 4, 2019 visits. Id. ¶¶ 10, 13, 15.
• Over five months post-vaccination, Petitioner saw his PCP on December 4,
2019, for a chief complaint of “scrotal pain.” Ex. 4 at 75. He also
9 While Petitioner originally recalled his July 8, 2019 visit as being with his PCP, it was actually with his
cardiologist (Ex. 4 at 92) – a fact he appears to have realized later on and addressed in his supplemental
declaration. See Ex. 12 ¶¶ 8-9 (explaining that his July 8th office visit was with a cardiologist). I do not
consider this discrepancy to be a material error.
5

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 6 of 10
“complain[ed] of chronic left shoulder pain for the past 3 months” – or since
roughly September 2019. Id. He did not link his pain to the subject
vaccination at that time, however. See id. A physical examination revealed
normal ROM. Id. at 77. The assessment included “chronic left shoulder
pain” and Petitioner was referred to an orthopedist and for an x-ray. Id. at
77-78.
• On December 12, 2019 (five months and ten days post vaccination),
Petitioner saw an orthopedist for his left shoulder pain, which he attributed
to his receipt of a vaccination. Ex. 2.2 at 44. Specifically, he reported that
he had received a “vaccine back on 07/14/2019 that was the impetus for the
beginning of his shoulder pain.” Id. at 46. The orthopedist opined that
Petitioner’s physical examination (showing decreased ROM) was
consistent with subacromial bursitis. Id. at 47. Petitioner received a steroid
injection and was referred to physical therapy (“PT”). Id. Petitioner also filled
out an intake form for this visit and noted that his injury began “after
vaccine/DTAP” on “7/14/2019.” Ex. 9 at 262.
• Petitioner underwent an initial PT evaluation on December 21, 2019. Ex.
2.2 at 72. Petitioner’s chief complaint was listed as “left shoulder pain
months after vaccine” with the “onset date” listed as “July was vaccine.” Id.
at 73. The “mechanism of injury” was documented as “vaccine.” Id.
• During an August 20, 2020 orthopedic follow up, the orthopedist noted that
Petitioner’s “symptoms actually started after he obtained a vaccination into
his left shoulder in 07/2019.” Ex. 2.2 at 319. More so, “[s]ince that time, he
has had this nontraumatic progressive pain.” Id.
• Petitioner began a second round of PT on August 27, 2020. Ex. 2.2 at 347.
Petitioner stated that he received a vaccination in his left shoulder in July
2019 “and noticed increased pain ever since.” Id. at 348.
• On October 8, 2020, Petitioner followed up with his orthopedist for his left
shoulder diagnoses of rotator cuff tendinopathy and subacromial bursitis
that “started after he had [a] Tdap vaccination in his left shoulder in
07/2019.” Ex. 2.2 at 447.
• No other medical record or affidavit/witness declaration evidence regarding
the onset of Petitioner’s post vaccination shoulder injury has been filed.
6

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 7 of 10
IV. Finding of Fact Regarding Onset
A petitioner alleging a SIRVA claim must show that he experienced the first
symptom or onset within 48 hours of vaccination (42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B) and
3(c)(10)(ii) (QAI criteria)).
As stated above, Respondent contends (in part) that Petitioner’s medical records
do not support the conclusion that the onset of his pain occurred within 48 hours of
vaccination. Respondent’s Report at 7. But the totality of the evidence is favorable to
Petitioner on this issue – albeit barely. The aforementioned medical records, coupled with
Petitioner’s filed witness declarations, establish that Petitioner reported to treaters an
onset close-in-time to vaccination, and that he was experiencing symptoms in the relevant
timeframe. See, e.g., Ex. 2.2 at 72-73, 319, 347-48, 447 (ECF No. 9-3); Exs. 1, 12.
Admittedly, the record establishes that Petitioner delayed seeking treatment for his
left shoulder pain for over five months (until December 4, 2019), and did not specifically
link this pain to the subject vaccination until a week later, on December 12, 2019. But this
fact does not by itself preclude a finding of Table onset. There is no requirement that a
Program claimant prove onset with evidence that was generated within the six-month
severity timeframe, let alone contemporaneous to the two-day onset period. And similarly-
lengthy delays have in many other cases not prevented a favorable onset finding. See,
e.g., Tenneson v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 16-1664V, 2018 WL 3083140, at
*5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2018), mot. for rev. denied, 142 Fed. Cl. 329 (2019)
(finding a 48-hour onset of shoulder pain despite a nearly six-month delay in seeking
treatment); Williams v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 17-830V, 2019 WL 1040410,
at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 31, 2019) (noting a delay in seeking treatment for five-
and-a-half months because a petitioner underestimated the severity of her shoulder
injury).
Likewise, the fact that Petitioner sought care on approximately six10 occasions
during the initial gap between vaccination and his first record-memorialized complaint of
shoulder pain does not defeat an onset finding. See Ex. 4 at 75, 80, 84, 89, 92; Ex. 5 at
18, 59. In fact, almost all of those appointments were with a cardiac specialist for acute
and serious chest pain or shortness of breath issues, and/or were for specific testing (i.e.,
his July 12th echocardiogram or his September 25, 2019 exercise stress test), and thus
10 While Respondent contends that Petitioner had seven intervening medical visits without reporting left
shoulder pain, his Rule 4(c) report in fact describes six intervening visits. Respondent’s Report at 2-3. Still,
Petitioner’s Response to my Order to Show Cause describes a seventh intervening visit as occurring on
November 15, 2019, with a gastroenterologist for Petitioner’s pre-existing GERD; he did not describe left
shoulder symptoms. Ex. 2.2 at 15-21. I do not find this discrepancy to be material, as this additional
intervening visit was nonetheless with a specialist and Petitioner similarly would likely not have been
prompted to report shoulder-related complaints.
7

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 8 of 10
did not present occasions for Petitioner to report an unrelated musculoskeletal problem.
See id.
By contrast, two of these visits (on September 6 and November 14, 2019), were
with Petitioner’s PCP – to whom it would have been reasonable to report persistent
shoulder pain (especially if the pain was as severe as Petitioner alleges in his affidavit at
that time). Ex. 4 at 80, 89. But I do not find Petitioner’s omission of shoulder complaints
at these visits to completely undermine a two-day onset finding, when considered against
the bulk of the evidence. This is especially true in light of Petitioner’s declarations stating
that he had mentioned shoulder complaints during the September 6th and November 14th
PCP visits, but that such complaints were not recorded because his treater’s care was
focused on his acute chest pain issues. Ex. 1 ¶ 10; Ex. 12 ¶¶ 10, 13, 15.
In addition, and as I have previously noted, SIRVA petitioners often put off seeking
shoulder-related care based on the reasonable assumption that the pain is normal and
will resolve on its own over time, especially since patients are often told by medical
providers at the time of vaccination to expect some soreness and pain. This appears to
have been the case here, with Petitioner explaining he thought his pain left over from the
vaccination would resolve with time and such specialists could not treat such pain. See,
e.g., Ex. 12 ¶¶ 9-10, 13, 15.
Some records support an alternative onset finding, but they must be weighed
against the entirety of the record, and thus do not ultimately prove fatal to Petitioner’s
onset contentions. Such entries still contain references to left upper extremity
symptomology, thus bolstering Petitioner’s contentions in his affidavit that he mentioned
left shoulder ailments as secondary issues and as a result they were not the focus of care.
See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 80-82 (the November 14, 2019 PCP visit for “abdominal pain” wherein
Petitioner had arm pain but “denie[d] pain in the shoulders” and the visit diagnoses
included “left upper arm pain”); Ex. 4 at 75, 77-78 (the December 4, 2019 PCP visit for a
“primary complaint” of “scrotal pain” but also a complaint of “chronic left shoulder pain for
the past 3 months” – or since September 2019, resulting in an assessment including
“chronic left shoulder pain”).
Otherwise, the medical records establish that Petitioner affirmatively and
repeatedly linked his shoulder pain to the subject vaccine – beginning with the December
12th treatment encounter, at which time he reported that “he had a vaccine back on
07/14/2019 that was the impetus for the beginning of his shoulder pain.” See Ex. 2.2 at
44-46; see also Ex. 9 at 262 (a December 12, 2019 orthopedic intake form listing the
injury as “after vaccine/DTAP” and listing the date as “7/14/2019”). This reporting – while
8

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 9 of 10
incorrectly describing the precise date of vaccination – provides support for a Table-
consistent onset.
And despite some ambiguity, the remaining entries in the medical records support
the conclusion that Petitioner’s injury likely began soon after vaccination. See, e.g., Ex.
2.2 at 72-73 (a December 21, 2019 initial PT note of “left shoulder pain months after
vaccine” with the “onset date” listed as “July” and the “mechanism of injury” documented
as “vaccine.”); Ex. 2.2 at 319 (an August 20, 2020 orthopedic note that “symptoms actually
started after he obtained a vaccination into his left shoulder in 07/2019” and “[s]ince that
time” he has had pain); Ex. 2.2 at 347-48 (an August 27, 2020 PT note that he had
“noticed increased pain ever since” his July 2019 vaccination); Ex. 2.2 at 447 (the October
8, 2020 orthopedic note that left shoulder pain “started after he had [a] Tdap vaccination
in his left shoulder in 07/2019.”). These record entries corroborate the contentions made
in Petitioner’s declarations that his left shoulder pain began in July 2019 after his receipt
of a Tdap vaccine – thus supporting an onset soon after vaccination. See Exs. 1, 12.
Of course – a delay of treatment that temporally nearly matches the Act’s severity
timeframe, as here, is strong evidence that the claimant’s pain was not notably severe. I
can and do conclude from such a record that Petitioner lived with the pain easily, and for
a long period of time. This fact will impact any pain and suffering award issued in this
case – and Petitioner must therefore act accordingly in calculating damages to be
requested.
Finally, I note that this fact determination does not resolve the remaining disputed
QAI criteria – that Petitioner had a history of symptoms in the vaccinated shoulder, or that
there is another condition or abnormality present that could explain Petitioner’s post-
vaccination condition. Respondent has not had a sufficient opportunity to address
Petitioner’s arguments on these issues. Compare Respondent’s Report at 7-8 (contesting
QAIs I and IV in two paragraphs), with Petitioner’s Response at 1-40; Ex. 12 at 1-15
(discussing these factors at length). I encourage the parties to explore settlement, but
with the knowledge that these issues remain.
Conclusion and Scheduling Order
If at any time informal resolution (of either settlement or proffer) appears unlikely,
given that the claim has been pending in SPU for over one year (having been assigned
in September 2022), the parties should propose a method for moving forward, i.e., with a
proposed briefing schedule or otherwise stating how they wish to proceed.
9

Case 1:21-vv-00904-UNJ Document 40 Filed 06/24/25 Page 10 of 10
Accordingly, by no later than Monday, June 23, 2025, the parties shall file a joint
status report confirming the date on which Petitioner conveyed, or intends to convey, a
reasonable settlement demand and supporting documentation for Respondent’s
consideration. If applicable, the status report may also state whether Respondent
wishes to file an amended Rule 4(c) report and stating how much time is needed to
submit said report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10