# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1643 V

UNPUBLISHED

D ENISE BRUEGGEMAN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: February 19, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Causation

- In

- Fact; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner.

Kimberly Shubert Davey , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On October 23, 2019

, Denise Bruegge man 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 inju ry related to vaccine administration, which me e ts the Table definition for SIRVA, after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 28, 2018 . Petit ion at 1, ¶¶ 2, 10

. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccination in the United States, suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that she has not filed a civil action or received an award or settlement for her SIRVA, alleged as v accine

- caused. Id. at ¶¶ 2

, 10

- 12

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 Injur y Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2

On February 18, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) R epor t 3 in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent “ has concluded that [P]etitioner ’ s alle ged injury is

consistent with SIRVA and was caused

- in

- fact by the administ ration of a flu vaccine on September 28, 2018

. ” Id. at 4 . Respondent further agrees that “ based on the record as

i t now stands, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the

Act. [ 4 ] ” Rule 4 Re port at 4.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

3 Respondent filed a combined Rule 4 Report and Pro ffer. ECF N o. 28. A Decisio n Awar ding Damages based upon the Proffer also will be issued today.

4 Respondent notes that I issued a Fact Ruling finding Petitioner h ad met the statutory six

- month requirement. Rule 4 Report at 4 n.1 ; see Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)

.