Bruhl v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1240V UNPUBLISHED

EMILY BRUHL, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: April 9, 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)

Bruce W. Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner. Wei Kit Tai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On August 20, 2019, Emily Bruhl 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 suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) caused by adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination and/or the administration thereof received on September 1, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 26, 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 concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA. Id. at 3. Respondent determined that petitioner had no apparent history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. Respondent further agrees that “the records show that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. at 4.

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