United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Kramer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 29, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1471V UNPUBLISHED

TAMMY KRAMER, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: March 30, 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)

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On September 25, 2019, Tammy Kramer 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 left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after she received an influenza (flu) vaccination on October 16, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 15, 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. Respondent determined that “[P]etitioner meets the criteria for a presumed SIRVA, as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table . . . . [s]pecifically, [P]etitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain her symptoms . . . .” and that “the statutory six month sequela requirement has been satisfied.” Id. at 4-5. Respondent concluded that “[P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that the scope of damages to be awarded are limited to Petitioner’s SIRVA and resulting sequelae. 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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.