1 

# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-0332V Filed: February 27, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

DEREK CLARK,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

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

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Meredith Burns Healy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washingt on, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master

On March 5, 2018, Derek Clark (“petit ioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Com pensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et

seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to his right shoulder on November 15, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the Un ited States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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 mo ve to redact medical or other information, the

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this def inition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling contai ns a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the Unit ed States Court of Federal Claims' website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).

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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 On February 27, 2019, respondent filed hi s Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compen sation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “petitioner has sati sfied the criteria for SIRVA set forth in the recently revi sed Vaccine Injury Table (‘Table’) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (‘QAI’ ), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if petitioner had no re cent history of pain, infla mmation, or dysfunction of his right shoulder, pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscularlyadministered vaccination, pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered, and no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial neuritis, has been identified to explain petit ioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “based on the medical records outlined above, pet itioner suffered the residual effects of

his condition for more than six months. Ther efore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequi sites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of respondent’s positio n and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master