United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Vang v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided March 30, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1265V UNPUBLISHED

MICHAEL VANG, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: February 25, 2021 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)

Jerome A. Konkel, Samster, Konkel & Safran, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for petitioner. Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On August 23, 2019, Michael Vang 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 he suffered left arm pain, adhesive capsulitis, and disability which satisfies the Table definition for a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) or, in the alternative was caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccine he received on December 7, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 13-14. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccination in the United States, continues to suffer the residual effects of his SIRVA more than six months later, and that he has not filed a civil action or received an award or settlement for his SIRVA, alleged as vaccine-caused. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 15-16. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 25, 2021, 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 compensation is appropriate because [P]etitioner meets the criteria for a presumed SIRVA, as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “based on the current records, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites 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

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.