In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1799V

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELLE BRASSINGTON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: December 12, 2019

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On November 21, 2018, Michelle Brassington 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 left Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine 

administered on September 21, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 9, 2019, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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).
2

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent notes that Petitioner had no history of pain, 

inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to vaccine administration, that 

Petitioner “more likely than not” suffered the onset of pain within 48 hours of vaccine 

administration, her symptoms were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was 

administered, and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain 

Petitioner’s symptoms Id. at 4-5. Respondent further agrees 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 her 

injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. Id. At 4-5.

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