United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Rizvi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided September 1, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0881V UNPUBLISHED

ZEHRA RIZVI, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: August 2, 2022 v.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)

Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner. Jennifer A. Shah, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 8, 2021, Zehra Rizvi 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 defined in the Vaccine Table, after receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine in her left deltoid on October 9, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 3, 15-16, 18. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA injury for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA injury. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 17, 21-22. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On August 1, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) in which he states that, in light of my factual finding regarding the site of vaccination, he will not contest entitlement. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent believes that in light of my fact ruling and medical record evidence, “[P]etitioner suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his right to appeal the Findings and Conclusions, [R]espondent does not dispute that [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6-7.

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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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