Clements v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-0977V

JEFFREY CLEMENTS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: May 19, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Katherine Carr Esposito, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On June 26, 2024, Jeffrey Clements 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 he received a right arm influenza (“flu”) vaccination and a left arm hepatitis B (“Hep B”) vaccination, both on October 14, 2022, and thereafter suffered bilateral shoulder pain, resulting in a Table shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. Petition at 2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

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.

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 May 16, 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 states that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulders prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; he more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; his pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulders in which the intramuscular vaccine were administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 10. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. 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