United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Mitchell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided May 28, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1593V UNPUBLISHED

DORIS MITCHELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: April 26, 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)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 11, 2019, Doris Mitchell 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 left shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 12, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 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 agrees that “petitioner had no history of pain or dysfunction in her left shoulder prior to the flu vaccine; petitioner’s left shoulder injury manifested immediately after receipt of her flu vaccine; the pain and reduced range of motion were limited to her left shoulder; and no other condition or abnormality would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that the statutory six month sequela requirement has been satisfied and, therefore, Petitioner 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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.