United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Dixon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided July 6, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-0102V UNPUBLISHED

KENYA DIXON, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: June 3, 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)

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 30, 2020, Kenya Dixon 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 vaccine received on December 4, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 2, 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 pre-vaccination history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder; pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and, no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial neuritis, has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 5-6. Respondent further agrees that the medical records establish that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months and has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 6.

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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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