The opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1293V
TANNISTA BANERJEE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 27, 2026
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Joseph P. Shannon, Shannon Law Group, Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On August 21, 2024, Tannista Banerjee 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 that she suffered a Table injury - shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the administration of her August
26, 2023 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she
received the vaccine in the United States, 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 ¶¶ 2, 19, 22-23. 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 February 23, 2026, 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
DICP [the Division of Injury Compensation Programs (“DICP”) at the
Department of Health and Human Services] has concluded that petitioner’s
alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury
Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or
dysfunction of her left shoulder prior to vaccination; shoulder pain occurred
within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular flu vaccination;
shoulder pain and reduced ROM were limited to the side in which the
vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been
identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(XIV)(B),
(c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined above,
petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six
months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner 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 4.
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