In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1550V

UNPUBLISHED

H.F.,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 26, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 4, 2019, H.F. 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 suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration 

(“SIRVA”), which meets the Table definition for SIRVA, or, in the alternative, was caused 

by the influenza vaccine he received on October 13, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1-3. Petitioner 

further alleges that he received the vaccine in the United States and that neither he nor 

any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his SIRVA.3 Petition 

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 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).

3 Petitioner did not address the Vaccine Act’s six-month severity requirements, but indicated, in the Petition, 

that additional documents and affidavits would be filed. Petition at ¶ 7. A cursory Petition was filed in this 

case shortly before the expiration of the Vaccine Act’s statute of limitations. See Section 16(a)(2). 
2

at ¶¶ 5-6. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special 

Masters.

On August 26, 2021, 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 indicates that he believes “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria 

set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to 

Interpretation.” Id. at 9. Respondent further agrees that “based on the case record as it 

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

Act.” Id. at 10.

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