United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Harte v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 27, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-0453V UNPUBLISHED

DENISSA HARTE, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: September 24, 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)

Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

James Vincent Lopez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On April 17, 2020, Denissa Harte 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on September 14, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 24, 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, it is Respondent’s position that Petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccination; that the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; that Petitioner’s pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and that no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain Petitioner’s left shoulder pain. Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 section 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.