United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Pressey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided July 29, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0640V UNPUBLISHED

LINDA PRESSEY, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: June 23, 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)

Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Steven Santayana, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 12, 2021, Linda Pressey 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 left shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on September 16, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges she received the vaccine in the United States, her condition persisted for more than six months, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever filed an action, or received compensation in the form of an award or settlement, for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 9-11. 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 agrees that “petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that the records show that the case was timely filed, the vaccine was received in the United States, and that Petitioner satisfied the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. Id. Respondent adds that Petitioner averred that she has never received an award or settlement for her vaccine injuries or filed a civil action. Id. (citing Ex. 7 at 1).

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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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