VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01029 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01029 Petitioner: Bethel Boeder Filed: 2025-06-20 Decided: 2026-01-12 Vaccine: tetanus Vaccination date: 2024-02-09 Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages Award amount USD: AI-assisted case summary: On June 20, 2025, Bethel Boeder filed a petition alleging that a tetanus vaccine administered on February 9, 2024 caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Respondent conceded entitlement in a Rule 4(c) report filed January 5, 2026. The concession stated that Ms. Boeder's injury was consistent with Table SIRVA, including no prior shoulder problem, pain within the required timeframe, pain limited to the vaccinated shoulder, no alternative abnormality explaining the symptoms, and the required duration. The short public ruling does not describe the treatment course. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found Ms. Boeder entitled to compensation on January 12, 2026. Damages remained pending. Theory of causation field: Tetanus vaccine February 9, 2024 causing SIRVA; adult, exact age not stated; onset within Table timeframe. ENTITLEMENT CONCEDED; damages pending. Rule 4(c): Table SIRVA, no prior shoulder issue, pain limited to vaccinated shoulder, no alternative condition, residual effects sufficient. Chief SM Brian H. Corcoran; petition June 20, 2025; decision January 12, 2026. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_25-vv-01029-0 Date issued/filed: 2026-02-12 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 01/12/2026) regarding 15 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (cr) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:25-vv-01029-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-1029V BETHEL BOEDER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: January 12, 2026 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Sara DeStefano, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On June 20, 2025, Bethel Boeder 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”) following a tetanus vaccination she received on February 9, 2024. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her symptoms “persisted for more than six months.” Petition at ¶ 6. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On January 5, 2026, 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 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 1:25-vv-01029-UNJ Document 17 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 2 by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her right shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced ROM were 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. 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_25-vv-01029-cl-extra-11259565 Date issued/filed: 2026-02-12 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10792924 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-1029V BETHEL BOEDER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: January 12, 2026 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner. Sara DeStefano, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On June 20, 2025, Bethel Boeder 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”) following a tetanus vaccination she received on February 9, 2024. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her symptoms “persisted for more than six months.” Petition at ¶ 6. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On January 5, 2026, 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 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). by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, Petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her right shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced ROM were 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. 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