Gutknecht v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-764V

KELLY JO GUTKNECHT, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: April 29, 2024 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Timothy James Lessman, Knutson & Casey Law Firm, Mankato, MN, for Petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On May 25, 2023, Kelly Jo Gutknecht 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 (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 4, 2021 (a “Table injury”). Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she received her vaccination in the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. See Petition at ¶¶ 4, 16-17. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018).

On April 22, 2024, 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 DICP [Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services] has reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and has concluded that compensation is appropriate because petitioner meets the criteria for a presumed SIRVA, as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no known history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain occurred within forty-eight 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 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B)). Respondent further agrees that “the statutory six month sequela requirement has been satisfied.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(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