United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Liter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided August 19, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1697V UNPUBLISHED

DEBORAH LITER, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: July 15, 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)

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On November 25, 2020, Deborah Liter 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 29, 2019. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the “adverse effects of her vaccine- related injuries have lasted for longer than six months.” Petition at ¶31. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On July 15, 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 “Petitioner has satisfied the criteria for SIRVA set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation, which afford the petitioner the presumption of causation, because Petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in her right shoulder; her pain occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain her symptoms.” Id. at 8. Respondent further agrees that “the statutory six-month sequela requirement has been satisfied.” 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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.