Bruno v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0562V UNPUBLISHED

CYNTHIA D. BRUNO, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: June 24, 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)

Richard H. Moeller, Moore, Heffernan, et al., Sioux City, IA, for Petitioner. Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 11, 2021, Cynthia D. Bruno 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 received an influenza (flu) vaccination on October 7, 2019, and thereafter suffered from a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Petition at 6. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 23, 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 states that “[m]edical personnel at the DICP have reviewed the facts of this case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no apparent recent history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty- eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 4- 5. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation. Id. at 5.

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