Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-63V

LYNETTE SMITH, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: February 29, 2024 v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Neil Bhargava, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 5, 2021, Lynette Smith 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from the influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on October 14, 2019. Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccination was administered within the United States, her vaccine-related injuries lasted more than six months, and neither she, nor any other party, has every brought an action or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for her vaccine-related injuries. Petition at 1, 4. 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). On February 27, 2024, 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. Respondent concluded that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 7. Specifically, Respondent determined that Petitioner “had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her right shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain Ms. Smith’s shoulder pain.” Id. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months.” 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