In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-13V

UNPUBLISHED

MARIA NINO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: June 23, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

John Robert Howie, Howie Law, PC, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 4, 2021, Maria Nino 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 Table injury – Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of her December 11, 2018

influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was 

administered within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury 

for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil 

action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 29-30. 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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).
2

On June 13, 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,

[i]t is respondent’s position that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth 

in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to 

Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 

100.3(c)(10). Specifically, petitioner had no apparent history of pain, 

inflammation, or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to the 

vaccination that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination 

findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccination; petitioner 

more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within 48 hours of 

vaccination; petitioner’s pain and reduced ROM were limited to the 

shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or 

abnormality has been identified that would explain petitioner’s symptoms. 

42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10); see also 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). 

Petitioner is therefore entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation. See 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i).

Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that

[w]ith respect to other statutory issues, the records show that the case was 

timely filed, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(2); that petitioner received the flu 

vaccine in the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(B)(i)(I); that the flu 

vaccine that petitioner received is set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 

C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(I)-(II); see also 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14(c); that petitioner’s

injury lasted for more than six months, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i); 

and that petitioner has not filed a prior action or received any prior 

compensation or award for an injury related to this vaccine. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-11(c)(1)(E). Therefore, based on the record as it now stands,

petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the 

Vaccine Act.

Id. at 6-7.

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