Peet v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1088V UNPUBLISHED

KIMBERLEIGH PEET, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: November 10, 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.

Nancy Tinch, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On August 28, 2020, Kimberleigh Peet 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) caused by an influenza vaccination she received on November 2, 2018. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 13. Petitioner further alleges that her shoulder injury has persisted longer than six months and that she has not received any compensation (award or settlement) for her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 9, 11. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 9, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Damages (“Rule 4/Proffer”) in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)/Proffer at 7. Specifically, Respondent states 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. at 6-7.

Respondent further states that “the scope of damages to be awarded is limited to Petitioner’s SIRVA and its related sequelae only”. Id. at 7.

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