Waddell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-0751V

SKYLA WADDELL, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: October 7, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.

Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 On May 1, 2025, Skyla Waddell 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”) following a meningitis vaccination she received on March 15, 2023. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her vaccine-related injury for more than six months. Petition at ¶ 29. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 7, 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. Respondent states that “Petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA.

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).

Specifically, Petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduce range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there I no other condition or abnormality present that would explain Petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 3-4. Respondent further agrees that “in light of the information contained in Petitioner’s medical records, affidavit, and petition, Respondent concede that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act.” Id. at 4.

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