# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1605 V

UNPUBLISHED

STEPHEN McGEORGE

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 28, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

C arl Joseph McCoy, McCoy & McCoy Attorneys at Law LLC, Newark, OH , for petitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On October 15, 2019

, Stephen McGeorge 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 ” ) as a result of his October 24, 2018 influneza (“flu”) vaccination

. Petit ion at 1

- 2 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 24, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) and Proffer on Compensation
report in which he concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report and Proffer on Compensation at 1.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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

- Gover nment 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 f its 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 subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2 Specifically, R espondent indicates that

Under the Vaccine Act, petitioner may demonstrate eligibility for an award

of compensation by showing that he suffered a vaccine

- specific injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table within the requisite time period set forth in the
Table, in which case causa tion is presumed. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3.

Medical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), have reviewed the facts

of this case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; he more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty

- eight hours of vaccine administration; his pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the
shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10). Therefore, petitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation.

Id. at 3 . Respondent further agrees that

[w] ith respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, 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 effect s or complications of her injury for more than six

months after vaccine administration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 11(c)(1)(D)(i). Petitioner also avers that “[n]either I nor anyone on my behalf has ever received compensation in the form of an award or settlem ent for [his]

vaccine

- related injury.” Ex. 3 at 2.

Id.

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