# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0456 V

UNPUBLISHED

DARRELL BARRET T

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: December 16, 2020

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

Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC , for petitioner.

Zoe Wade , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On March 28, 2019

, Darrell Barrett 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 right shoulder injur i es as a result of an
influenza vaccine administered on December 28, 2017 . Petit ion at 1

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

On June 30, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that

P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case for shoulder injury related to vaccine

administration . Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. R espondent indi cates that he agrees that “ petitioner ’ s medical course is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, pet itioner

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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

ha d no his tory of pain, inflam mation, or dys function of his right shoulder, pain occur red within 48 hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination, pain wa s limited to the
shoulder where the vaccine was administered, a nd no other condition or abnormality,
such as brachial neuritis, has been i dentified to explain petitioner ’ s shoulder pain

. ” Id. at

6

- 7

. Respondent further agrees that “ petitioner suffered t he residual effects of his

condition for more than six months

. Therefore , based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal pre requisites for compensa tion under the Act. ” Id . at 7.

In the Rule 4 (c) Report, Responden t a dd s that he “ does no t believe pe ti tioner i s entitled to compensation a s related to his bicep s tendon injury and its sequela, which

occ urred approximately nine month s a fter the flu vaccination, requiring surgical
intervention, and def ends the same

. ” R ule 4 (c) Report at 1

- 2.

On July 8, 2020, a tele phonic status conference was held to discuss how the parties wi shed to proceed in light of Respond ent ’ s Rule 4 (c) R eport. Scheduling Order,

is sued July 8, 2020 (ECF No. 26). Respondent exp ressed h is view that a full entitlement

decision was no t appropriate at that time , and the parties agreed t hat Petitioner would file
a status report c oncerning how the parties wi shed to proceed b y August 7, 2020

. Id

.

The parties then e ngaged in discussions for sever al months. On December 16,

2020, Respondent filed a proffer indicating t hat Petitioner should be awarded damages, and that Petitioner agreed (ECF No. 32).

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