VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01156 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01156 Petitioner: Edward Quiroz Filed: 2024-07-29 Decided: 2025-07-08 Vaccine: tetanus vaccine Vaccination date: 2023-09-02 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: On July 29, 2024, Edward Quiroz filed a petition alleging that a tetanus vaccine administered on September 2, 2023 caused shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent conceded entitlement in July 2025, agreeing that Mr. Quiroz's injury was consistent with Table SIRVA and that the statutory requirements for compensation had been met. The public ruling identifies the Table elements but does not describe the first medical visit, imaging, injections, physical therapy, work effects, or residual limitations. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found Mr. Quiroz entitled to compensation on July 8, 2025. Damages remained to be determined. Theory of causation field: Tetanus vaccine September 2, 2023 causing Table SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated; onset within 48 hours. ENTITLEMENT CONCEDED; damages pending. Respondent conceded Table SIRVA and legal prerequisites. Public ruling lacks treatment chronology. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition July 29, 2024; entitlement July 8, 2025. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_24-vv-01156-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-08 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/08/2025) regarding 21 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:24-vv-01156-UNJ Document 23 Filed 08/08/25 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1156V EDWARD QUIROZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 8, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Ryan Nelson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On July 29, 2024, Edward Quiroz 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”) follow a tetanus vaccination he received on September 2, 2023. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he has suffered the residual effects of his vaccine-related injury for more than six months.” Petition at ¶ 13. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 7, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Respondent states that “Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by 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-01156-UNJ Document 23 Filed 08/08/25 Page 2 of 2 the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced range of motion was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain Petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 4-5. 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_24-vv-01156-cl-extra-11117042 Date issued/filed: 2025-08-08 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10650455 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1156V EDWARD QUIROZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: July 8, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner. Ryan Nelson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On July 29, 2024, Edward Quiroz 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”) follow a tetanus vaccination he received on September 2, 2023. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he has suffered the residual effects of his vaccine-related injury for more than six months.” Petition at ¶ 13. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On July 7, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Respondent states that “Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by 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). the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced range of motion was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain Petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 4-5. 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