# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 1799 V

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELLE BRASSINGTON

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: December 12, 2019

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing 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 ENTITLEMENT 1

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 infl uenza ( “ flu ” ) vacci ne administered on September 21, 2017 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 9, 2019

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t 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 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent notes that Petitioner had no history of pain,

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

Petitioner “ more likely than not ” suffered the onse t 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 a bnor mality 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 sat isfies the

statut ory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration

. Id. A t 4

- 5.

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

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master