# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1456 V

UNPUBLISHED

KRISTINIA BROOKS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: April 19, 2021

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

David Alexander Tierney, Rawls L aw Group, Richmond , VA , for P etitioner.

Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr. , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for

R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On September 23, 2019

, Kristinia Brooks 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 r elated to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 10,

2016 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 19, 2021

, 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 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent agrees that “ pet itioner ’ s claim meets the Table criteria for

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2

SIRVA

. S pecifically

, petitioner has no apparent history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine admini stration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, e xamination findings, and/or di agnostic

studies occurring after vaccine injection; she mo re likely than not suffered the onset of pain within f ort y

- eight hours of vacci ne administration; her pain and re duced 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 petiti oner ’ s symptoms

. ” Id. at 3 . Respondent further agrees that the case was timely filed, the vaccine was received in the United States, P etitioner satisfies the statutory seve rity require ment by suffering the resi dual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months

after vaccine administration , and Petitioner ha s averred she has not fi le d a civil action or received compen sation in the f orm of an award or civil settlement for her injury

. Id . at 4.

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