Fajardo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2022 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1294V
UNPUBLISHED
ALEJANDRA FAJARDO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 14, 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)
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Emilie Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On September 30, 2020, Alejandro Fajardo 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on November
9, 2018. Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges she received the flu vaccine in the United
States, she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and no
lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone, including
Petitioner, due to her vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 17-19. 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Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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).
On March 11, 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 “petitioner had no apparent 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 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.” Id. at 9. 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 the
injury for more than six months after vaccine administration,” and that Petitioner avers
that no lawsuits haven filed or settlements or awards accepted for Petitioner’s vaccine-
related injury. Id. at 9-10.
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