In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1075V

Filed: March 2, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

KAREN COMEIRO, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Trivalent Flu Vaccine; Injection Site

* Injury; Special Processing Unit

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Erika Todd, Esq., Arrowood Peters LLP, Boston, MA for petitioner.

Justine Walters, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On November 4, 2014, Karen Comeiro filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,

2

[the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered injuries to include 

“severe blistering and disfigurement at the injection site” which were caused by the 

trivalent flu vaccine she received on October 8, 2013.3 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to 

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006).

3 Petition at 1. Initially, petitioner also alleged that she suffered an adverse effect on her rheumatoid 

arthritis (an ongoing condition) because she was forced to abstain from taking at least one of her

rheumatoid arthritis medications which was interfering with the healing of the injection site injury. Petition 

at 4-5. Respondent disputes vaccine causation for this additional injury. See Respondent’s Rule 4(c)

Report [“Res. Report”] at 2, 9-10. On March 2, 2015, petitioner’s counsel informed the OSM staff attorney 

managing this case by email that petitioner had agreed to narrow her claim to exclude any claim of 

aggravation of her rheumatoid arthritis. 
2

On February 27, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Res. Report at 2. 

Specifically, respondent “concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation for the 

local skin reaction that she sustained in her left arm [but] . . . denies that compensation 

is appropriate for petitioner’s claim that she suffered from an aggravation of her

rheumatoid arthritis as a sequela of her injury.” Id.; accord. id at 9-10. Petitioner has 

agreed to limit her claim to the injury to which respondent concedes. See supra note 3. 

Respondent agrees that petitioner’s injury lasted for more than six months. Res. Report 

at 9-10.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation.

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master