In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-35V
UNPUBLISHED
LINDA WILSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: April 17, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On January 4, 2019, Linda Wilson 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 her October 26, 2017 influneza (“flu”) vaccination
caused her to suffer a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”).
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
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Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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.
2
National 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).
On April 15, 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. Specifically, Respondent indicates that
[m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs,
Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), have reviewed the
facts of this case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table
criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner more likely than not had no
history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior
to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged
signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies
occurring after vaccine injection; she more likely than not suffered the
onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain
and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the
intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or
abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms. 42 C.F.R. §
100.3(a), (c)(10). Therefore, petitioner is entitled to a presumption of
vaccine causation.
Id. at 4-5. Respondent further agrees that
[w]ith respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, the records show
that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United
States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by
suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than
six months after vaccine administration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
11(c)(1)(D)(i). Petitioner moreover avers that she has neither “filed [a] civil
action for [her] vaccine-related injury” nor “received compensation in the
form of an award or settlement” for the same. Ex. 7 at 2. Thus, respondent
concedes that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under the terms
of the Vaccine Act.
Id. at 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