Moore v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Moore
Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided
July 1, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Importance
46%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1854V DANAH MOORE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: May 29, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Petitioner. Elizabeth Andary, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On November 12, 2024, Danah Moore 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”) resulting from an influenza vaccine received on September 18, 2023. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, her left shoulder symptoms have persisted for more than six months, and neither Petitioner, nor any other party, has ever filed any action or accepted compensation in the form of an award or settlement, for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 4, 28-30. 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 May 28, 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 agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table in that “petitioner 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 range of motion [were] 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.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that the records demonstrate that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, and has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. 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
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 1, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
In Moore v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Federal Claims addressed a petition filed by Danah Moore under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Vaccine Act). The case was assigned to the Office of Special Masters and revolves around a claim of Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) following an influenza vaccination.
Key Legal Issues
- Eligibility for Compensation: Determining if the petitioner meets the criteria for compensation under the Vaccine Act.
- SIRVA Definition: Evaluating if the injury aligns with the definition of SIRVA as per the Vaccine Injury Table.
Court's Decision
On July 1, 2025, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming that Danah Moore is entitled to compensation for her vaccine-related injury.
Legal Reasoning
The court's decision was influenced by the Respondent's Rule 4(c) report, which conceded that:
- The petitioner had no prior history of shoulder pain before the vaccination.
- Symptoms arose within forty-eight hours post-vaccination.
- The pain was localized to the shoulder where the vaccine was administered.
- No alternative medical explanations were found for the shoulder pain.
This reasoning aligns with the legal prerequisites outlined in the Vaccine Act, which requires evidence of a vaccine-related injury that persists for more than six months.
Key Holdings
- Entitlement to Compensation: The court found that Moore's injury met the legal criteria for SIRVA.
- Duration of Symptoms: The petitioner’s symptoms persisted beyond the required six-month period, fulfilling the compensation criteria.
Precedents and Citations
- National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10 et seq.
- Vaccine Injury Table: Defines specific injuries related to vaccine administration, including SIRVA.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the importance of understanding the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for individuals who may suffer from vaccine-related injuries. It highlights the legal framework that supports claims for compensation and the necessity for clear medical documentation to substantiate such claims. Legal practitioners should note the significance of timely filing and the importance of thorough medical records in establishing eligibility for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Additionally, this ruling may encourage other potential claimants to pursue compensation for similar injuries, reinforcing the legal protections afforded to individuals under the Vaccine Act.
In conclusion, Moore v. Secretary of Health serves as a pivotal case in the realm of vaccine injury claims, illustrating the procedural and substantive aspects of seeking redress under federal law.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 1, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools