United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Havis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided August 22, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0583V UNPUBLISHED

HOLLY HAVIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, v. Filed: July 21, 2022 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Special Processing Unit (SPU); HUMAN SERVICES, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA) Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson PC, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner. Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 12, 2021, Holly Havis 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 that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 4, 2019, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On July 19, 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 has satisfied the criteria set forth in the 6- 7Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a flu/ SIRVA Table injury. Id. at 4-5 (citing 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B): (10)(i- iv)). Respondent further agrees that Petitioner timely filed her case, that she received the flu vaccination in the United States, and that she has satisfied the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. Id. at 5 (citing Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)).

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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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