Matthews v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1947V

CHRISTINE MATTHEWS Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: July 28, 2025 v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Elizabeth Hess, Shannon Law Group, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.

Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On November 22, 2024, Christine Matthews 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 “Table Injury” of shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), as the result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap“) vaccination received on September 25, 2023. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, that the vaccine was administered within the United States, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Id. at 1, 11-12. 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). On July 21, 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 Conceding Entitlement to Compensation at 6. Specifically, Respondent has concluded that Petitioner’s injury is consistent with a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury table. Id. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has suffered the sequela of her injury for more than six months and all other legal requirements have been met 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