Mathews v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0684V UNPUBLISHED

NATHAN MATHEWS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: July 14, 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)

Jessi Carin Huff, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 12, 2021, Nathan Mathews 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 he suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 21, 2019. Petition at 1, 3. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered in the United States, his injuries have lasted more than six months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever brought an action or received compensation for his vaccine-related injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 17, 19-20; Ex. 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On July 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 at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in his left shoulder before his October 2019 intramuscular vaccine administration; his symptoms were limited to the left shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; he more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty- eight hours of vaccine administration; and there is no other condition or abnormality that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “the records show that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. at 7. Respondent also notes that Petitioner avers that neither he, nor anyone on his behalf, has received compensation or brought an action for his vaccine- related injuries. 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