Court Opinion

ID: 6271378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-18 14:01:28.014761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:54.444880
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 20-1257V
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    ANITA BRIANT,                                           Chief Special Master Corcoran

                        Petitioner,                         Filed: January 18, 2022
    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)

Brittany Rose Wolf-Freedman, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer,
LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.

Wei Kit Tai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                                   RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

       On September 24, 2020, Anita Briant 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on
September 3, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit
of the Office of Special Masters.

       On January 18, 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 agrees that “[P]etitioner’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  Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
SIRVA.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees 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. at 5.

       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