CUMMINGS v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 24-1742V
EDWARD CUMMINGS,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Chief Special Master Corcoran
Filed: November 10, 2025
David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 24, 2024, Edward Cummings 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 he suffered a Table injury - shoulder injury related
to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of the administration of his October 27,
2021 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1; Amended Petition, filed May 20, 2025, at
1, ¶¶ 21. Petitioner further alleges he received the vaccine in the United States, that he
suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and that there has
been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on his behalf as a result of his injury.
See Amended Petition at ¶¶ 4, 19-20. 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 1:24-vv-01742-UNJ Document 24 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 2

2
On November 6, 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,
Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”)
has reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case and has
concluded that compensation is appropriate. DICP 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 his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain
occurred 	within 	forty-eight 	hours 	after 	receipt 	of 	an 	intramuscular
vaccination; pain and reduced range of motion was limited to the shoulder
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), (c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records
outlined above, petitioner suffered the residual effects of his 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-13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i).
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
Case 1:24-vv-01742-UNJ Document 24 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2