VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00693
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00693
Petitioner: Bernard Stewart
Filed: 2025-02-18
Decided: 2025-03-25
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2023-06-17
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 48003

AI-assisted case summary:
Bernard Stewart filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a Tdap vaccination on June 17, 2023. He further alleged that the residual effects of his injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, conceded that Mr. Stewart's alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that he had satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, the Chief Special Master found Mr. Stewart entitled to compensation. The decision on damages awarded Mr. Stewart a lump sum of $48,003.18, which included $47,500.00 for pain and suffering and $503.18 for unreimbursable expenses. This award was intended to cover all damages available under the Act.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-00693-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-24
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 02/18/2025) regarding 19 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (jt1) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00693-UNJ Document 25 Filed 03/24/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-693V
BERNARD STEWART, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 18, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On May 1, 2024, Bernard Stewart (“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”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered from a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on June 17, 2023. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further
alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months. Id. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 18, 2025, Respondent filed his combined Rule 4(c) report and Proffer
in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, ECF No. 18. Specifically, Respondent indicated that
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).

Case 1:24-vv-00693-UNJ Document 25 Filed 03/24/25 Page 2 of 2
“[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury
Table.” Id. at 3. Respondent agrees that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Act.” Id.
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_24-vv-00693-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/18/2025) regarding 20 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. ( Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. )(cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:24-vv-00693-UNJ Document 26 Filed 03/25/25 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-693V
BERNARD STEWART, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner,
v. Filed: February 18, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION ON DAMAGES1
On May 1, 2024, 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”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination
administered to him on June 17, 2023. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that the
vaccine was received in the United States, he suffered sequela of his injury for more than
six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in
the form of an award or settlement for his vaccine-related injury. Id. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 18, 2025, Respondent filed a combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer
in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
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 (2012).

Case 1:24-vv-00693-UNJ Document 26 Filed 03/25/25 Page 2 of 2
Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer, ECF No. 18. That same day, I issued a Ruling
on Entitlement. ECF No. 19.
Respondent represents that Petitioner agrees to his proffer on an award of
compensation. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer at 4. 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 combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer,3 I
award the following compensation:
A lump sum of $48,003.18 (representing $47,500.00 for pain and suffering
and $503.18 for unreimbursable 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 Because the combined Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer contains information regarding Petitioner’s personal
medical history, which is not generally included in a Proffer when separately filed, it is not attached hereto.
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