Caswell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1749V UNPUBLISHED

PAMELA CASWELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: March 21, 2022 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)

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On December 3, 2020, Pamela Caswell 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 Table injury – Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of her February 3, 2020 influneza (“flu”) vaccine. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 7-9. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 15, 2022, 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 indicates that he has has concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA, as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, [P]etitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain and reduced range of motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain her symptoms.

Id. at 4 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10)). Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the statutory requirement that [P]etitioner’s injury lasted for at least six months as required by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore, [Respondent indicates] based on the record as it now stands, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” 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