Court Opinion

ID: 5136992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-21 14:01:40.694073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:59.897266
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 18-1925V
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    KATHLYN HAYNES                                          Chief Special Master Corcoran

                        Petitioner,                         Filed: November 19, 2021
    v.
                                                            Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                 Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                         Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
                                                            Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
                       Respondent.                          Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
Petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                                   RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

        On December 17, 2018, Kathlyn Haynes 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 suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine that was administered
to her on October 6, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

      On October 13, 2021, I issued Findings of Fact in which I determined that
“preponderant evidence establishes that the vaccination alleged as causal in this case
was more likely than not administered to Petitioner in the right arm/shoulder on October

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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.

2National 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).
6, 2017.” ECF No. 30 at 6. In reaction, on November 10, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule
4(c) report indicating that while preserving his right to appeal the October 13, 2021 Fact
Finding, “compensation is appropriate in this case” and stating that he “will not continue
to defend this case.” Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, 3.

       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

                                            2