In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-626V

UNPUBLISHED

HEATHER HOGAN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: June 30, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On January 12, 2021, Heather Hogan 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 October 22, 2019

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 ¶¶ 2, 10-12. 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 27, 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, Respondent indicates that

[m]edical personnel at the DICP [Division of Injury Compensation 

Programs, Department of Health and Human Services] have reviewed the 

facts of this case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table 

criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no apparent recent 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. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), (c)(10).

Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “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 effects or complications of her 

injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 

300aa-11(c)(1)(D)).

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