    In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 19-0589V
                                         UNPUBLISHED


    SCOTT B. HEARTH, M.D.,                                    Chief Special Master Corcoran

                         Petitioner,                          Filed: July 6, 2020
    v.
                                                              Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                   Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                           Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
                                                              acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
                        Respondent.                           Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
                                                              Administration (SIRVA)


William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren et al., P.C., Memphis, TN , for petitioner.

Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                     RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

      On April 22, 2019, Scott B. Hearth, M.D. 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 he received on June 15, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On July 6, 2020, 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.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 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.

2National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
Specifically, Respondent concludes that Petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for
SIRVA Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner’s SIRVA and its sequela
persisted for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine”. 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
