Mitchell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-1783V
JOANNE MITCHELL,
Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner,
v. Filed: August 26, 2026 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Mary Novakovic, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 22, 2025, Joanne Mitchell 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 Injury Table, 42 C.F.R. § 100.3, as the result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on November 18, 2024. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual symptoms of her injury for more than six months. Petition at 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On August 24, 2026, 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’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no relevant history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her right 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 Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and based on the record as it now stands, Petitioner 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
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.