The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1748V
ANIFE TASHI, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 7, 2025
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 25, 2024, Anife Tashi 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”) following an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on October 15,
2022. Petition at ¶¶ 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects
of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or
settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury. Petition at ¶¶ 27-30. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1
Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 (2018).
On July 3, 2025, 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 states that
[the Division of Injury Compensation Programs] has
concluded that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically,
[P]etitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or
dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain
occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an
intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced ROM were
limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered;
and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to
explain [P]etitioner’s shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a),
(c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined
above, [P]etitioner suffered the residual effects of her
condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the
record as it now stands, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Act. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i), -13(a)(1)(B).
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