In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0324V

UNPUBLISHED

STEVEN VINUEZA,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 16, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Causation-In-Fact; Influenza (Flu) 

Vaccine; Subcutaneous Abscess; 

Scarring

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.

Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 28, 2019, Steven Vinueza 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 “developed a subcutaneous abscess that 

resulted in scarring” after receiving the influenza vaccine on November 21, 2017. 

Petition at 1, at ¶¶ 3, 20. Petitioner describes his injury as a shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Id. Petitioner further alleges that he received the 

vaccination in the United States, suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than 

six months, and that neither he nor any other individual has filed a civil action or 

received compensation for his injury, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 20-21, 23. 

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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 EGovernment 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 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 (2012).

CORRECTED
2

On April 15, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case for his subcutaneous abscess but 

“denies that [P]etitioner suffered a SIRVA.” Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1.

Specifically, Respondent “concluded that petitioner developed an abscess and residual 

scar on his right upper extremity, which was more likely than not caused by 

administration of a flu vaccine at the same location.” Id. at 5. Respondent further 

agrees that “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 

6.

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

Petitioner is entitled to compensation for his subcutaneous abscess and 

scarring.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master