In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-831V
UNPUBLISHED
LYUDMILA DUTIL, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 30, 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)
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for
petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On June 5, 2019, Lyudmila Dutil 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 from a left shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccination administered on
January 25, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On September 30, 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 has reviewed the records filed in this case and
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Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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).
concluded that Petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for a SIRVA. Id. at 5.
Respondent further agrees that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under the
terms of the Vaccine Act. Id. at 5-6.
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