United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Heagle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided July 18, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-1848V

UNPUBLISHED

DEBRA HEAGLE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 16, 2022 v.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Respondent. Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Brynna Gang, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.

Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On December 14, 2020, Debra Heagle 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 sustained bilateral shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine in her right arm and a tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine in her left arm. Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no award or settlement on her behalf as the result of her injury. Petition at 13. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 14, 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 and Proffer on Damages at 1. Specifically, Respondent has determined that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for a SIRVA. Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine 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

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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