SHERFY v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 25-0381V
MILTON SHERFY,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: October 15, 2025
Emily Beth Ashe, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Mitchell Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On March 4, 2025, Milton Sherfy 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”) resulting from a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine received on May 2, 2023. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the Tdap
vaccine was administered in the United States, he suffered residual effects of his injury
for more than six months, and he has never received compensation in the form of an
award or settlement for his vaccine related injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 29-34, 38; Ex. 5 at
¶ 8. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.
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-00381-UNJ Document 21 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 2

2
On October 14, 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. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table in that “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 [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
5. Respondent further agrees that the records indicate that Petitioner suffered the residual
effects of his condition for more than six months and has satisfied all legal prerequisites
for compensation under the Vaccine 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
Case 1:25-vv-00381-UNJ Document 21 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 2