FISHER v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 22-195V
KARI LYNN FISHER,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: November 18, 2025
Jonathan Joseph Svitak, Shannon Law Group, P.C., Woodridge, IL, for Petitioner.
Sarah Black Rifkin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On February 22, 2022, Kari Lynn Fisher 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 alleged that she suffered a Table injury – shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) - as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received
on December 23, 2020. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 3, 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).
Case 1:22-vv-00195-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Because the parties reached an impasse in their informal discussions to settle this
case, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record on January 31, 2024. ECF No.
26. In reaction, Respondent filed a combined Response and Rule 4 Report on February
27, 2024, contesting Petitioner’s entitlement to compensation, and Petitioner filed a Reply
brief on March 12, 2024. ECF Nos. 27, 28.
The parties were subsequently notified that I would resolve this dispute via an
expedited entitlement hearing, which took place on November 17, 2025. ECF No. 29,
Hearing Order filed November 7, 2025 (Non-PDF Order).
Petitioner argues that she has established a Table claim for SIRVA, while
Respondent disputes that the Table elements have been met, specifically arguing that
Petitioner has failed to establish that she suffered the onset of pain within 48 hours of
vaccination pursuant C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (although he challenges
no other claim elements). ECF Nos. 26-28.
After considering the arguments of both sides and questioning the parties in regard
to the disputed issue at the expedited hearing on November 17, 2025, I issued an oral
ruling on entitlement constituting my findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to
Section 12(d)(3)(A). An official recording of the proceeding was taken by a court reporter,
although a transcript has not yet been filed in this matter. I hereby fully adopt and
incorporate that oral ruling as officially recorded. In another recent decision I discussed
at length the legal standards to be considered in determining entitlement. I incorporate
herein my prior discussion in Section III (A) of Tully v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No.
21-1998V, 2024 WL 4533515, at *6-8 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Sept. 20, 2024) to the instant
Ruling. Additionally, the official recording of my oral ruling includes discussion of specific
facts relating to Petitioner’s claim that further informed my resolution of this matter.
Based on my review of the complete record as a whole, and for the reasons
discussed in my oral ruling, pursuant to Section 12(d)(3)(A) of the Vaccine Act I find that
Petitioner has established that she likely suffered the onset of pain within 48 hours of
vaccination pursuant C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(B), 100.3(c)(10)(ii). I further find that all
other SIRVA Table requirements are met (see 42 C.F.R. §100.3(c)(10)). Additionally,
Petitioner has established the other claim requirements listed in Section 11(c), i.e., receipt
of a covered vaccine, etc. See generally § 11(c)(1)(A)(B)(D)(E). I therefore find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case.
Case 1:22-vv-00195-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Based on the entire record, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant
evidence 	satisfying 	all 	requirements 	for 	a 	Table 	SIRVA. 	Petitioner 	is 	entitled 	to
compensation. A Damages Order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
Case 1:22-vv-00195-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 3