Tracy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1942V

MARY JO TRACY, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: April 29, 2026

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Christopher Williams, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Michael Bliley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On November 21, 2024, Mary Jo Tracy 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 alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), a defined Table injury, or in the alternative caused-in-fact injury, after receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 15, 2023. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 13- 14. Petitioner also alleged that she received the vaccine within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 13, 15. 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 April 28, 2026, 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 concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 3-4. Respondent further agrees that based on the record as it now stands, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the 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