United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Daigle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 6, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-0797V

KERI H. DAIGLE, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, v. Filed: December 6, 2021 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu); Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA). Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group (Richmond), Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.

Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On June 30, 2020, Keri H. Daigle 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 alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on September 30, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 6, 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 (ECF No. 33) at 1. Specifically, Respondent concludes that Petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA. Id. at 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)).

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1 Because this unpublished opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 opinion will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioners have 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.