In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1456V

UNPUBLISHED

KRISTINIA BROOKS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 19, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

David Alexander Tierney, Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner.

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

Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

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 related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 10, 

2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office 

of Special Masters.

On April 19, 2021, 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, Respondent agrees that “petitioner’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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner has no apparent 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; she more likely than not suffered the onset of 

pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her 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.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that the case was timely filed, the vaccine 

was received in the United States, Petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement 

by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months 

after vaccine administration, and Petitioner has averred she has not filed a civil action or 

received compensation in the form of an award or civil settlement for her injury. Id. at 4. 

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