Salcedo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2021 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0394V
UNPUBLISHED
ANASTACIA SALCEDO, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: October 6, 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)
Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN, for
Petitioner.
Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On April 6, 2020, Anastacia Salcedo 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 received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October
23, 2018, and thereafter suffered a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that her injury continued for more
than six months. Petition at 4. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
the Office of Special Masters.
On October 6, 2021, 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
Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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).
1. Specifically, Respondent states that “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.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has
satisfied the statutory 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