Nadeau v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-0348V

MARYANN NADEAU, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: February 24, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Timothy J. Mason, Law Office of Sylvia Chin-Caplan, LLC, Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Jeremy Mauritzen, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On March 5, 2024, Maryann Nadeau filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”), which she amended on September 4, 2024. Petitioner alleges that that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November 9, 2021. Amended Petition at 1.

Petitioner further alleges that the flu vaccine was received in the United States, she suffered from residual effects of her injuries for more than six months, and no lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone, including Petitioner, related to her vaccine-related injuries. Amended Petition at ¶¶ 22, 24, 25. 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 February 24, 2025, 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’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table in that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced ROM were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 5.

Respondent further agrees that the records demonstrate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months and has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. 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