Drumm v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-0276V

UNPUBLISHED

JULIE DRUMM, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: December 13, 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.

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

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On February 21, 2019, Julie Drumm 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 “injuries including Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (‘SIRVA’), resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (‘flu’) vaccination she received on October 20, 2017.” Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her injury lasted for more than six months. Petition at 2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 10, 2021, Respondent filed an Amended Rule 4(c) report in which he states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states: [r]ecognizing that the Chief Special Master’s factual finding that the onset of petitioner’s shoulder pain occurred within forty-eight hours of her vaccination is the law of the case, respondent advises that he will not defend the case on other grounds during further proceedings before the Office of Special Masters. While preserving his right to appeal the Chief Special Master’s September 9, 2021 Findings of Facts, respondent submits that petitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (‘QAI’) for Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (‘SIRVA’). See 42 C.F.R §§ 100.3(a)(XIV) and (c)(10). Respondent requests a ruling on the record regarding petitioner’s entitlement to compensation.

Id. at 2. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner meets the criteria for SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Table and does not dispute that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id. at 6-7.

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