United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Brandt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided July 11, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0494V UNPUBLISHED

LOUIS BRANDT, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, v. Filed: June 10, 2022 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). LeeAnne Pedrick, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 11, 2021, Louis Brandt 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 he suffered a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 21, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 8, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria for SIRVA, as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the accompanying Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”). Respondent did not identify any other causes for Petitioner’s right shoulder injury. Rule 4(c) Report at 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10)). With respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, the records show that Petitioner timely filed his case, that he received the flu vaccine in the United States, and that he satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. Id. (citing Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)).

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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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.