NATHAN MATHEWS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: July 14, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jessi Carin Huff, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Jamica Marie Littles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 12, 2021, Nathan Mathews 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 21, 

2019. Petition at 1, 3. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered in the United 

States, his injuries have lasted more than six months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other 

party, has ever brought an action or received compensation for his vaccine-related 

injuries. Petition at ¶¶ 17, 19-20; Ex. 1. 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 21-0684V 

UNPUBLISHED 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

On July 14, 2022, 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 agrees that “petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or 

dysfunction in his left shoulder before his October 2019 intramuscular vaccine 

administration; his symptoms were limited to the left shoulder in which the intramuscular 

vaccine was administered; he more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within fortyeight hours of vaccine administration; and there is no other condition or abnormality that 

would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “the 

records show that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United 

States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the 

residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine 

administration.” Id. at 7. Respondent also notes that Petitioner avers that neither he, nor 

anyone on his behalf, has received compensation or brought an action for his vaccinerelated injuries. Id. 

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

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.