VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01578
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01578
Petitioner: Raghu Duggirala
Filed: 2018-10-10
Decided: 2021-10-20
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2015-10-04
Condition: shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 47000

AI-assisted case summary:
Raghu Duggirala filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 10, 2018, alleging he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving an influenza vaccine. The vaccination date was established as October 4, 2015. Initially, the respondent moved to dismiss the case, arguing it was untimely filed and not protected by the lookback provision. However, the Chief Special Master denied this motion, finding preponderant evidence that the petitioner's shoulder pain began within 48 hours of vaccination and was limited to his right shoulder, thus meeting the Table SIRVA requirements. Subsequently, the respondent filed an amended report, agreeing that the petitioner met the criteria for SIRVA and would not contest entitlement further. On June 7, 2021, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Mr. Duggirala entitled to compensation. On September 17, 2021, the respondent proffered an award of $47,000.00 for pain and suffering, which the petitioner agreed to. The Chief Special Master awarded this lump sum payment to Mr. Duggirala, who is a competent adult.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01578-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-07-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 06/07/2021) regarding 42 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01578-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/08/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1578V
UNPUBLISHED
RAGHU DUGGIRALA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: June 7, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Reginald C. Allen, Law Office of Reginald Allen, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 10, 2018, Raghu Duggirala filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”) alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(SIRVA). Petition at 1. In the petition, Petitioner alleged that he received an influenza
(“flu”) vaccine on October 24, 2015. Id. However, the medical records establish that
Petitioner’s vaccination actually occurred on October 4, 2015, more than three years prior
to the claim’s initiation. Ex 10 at 4-5. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
Respondent subsequently filed a Rule 4(c) report and Motion to Dismiss on April
24, 2020. ECF 33; ECF 34. Respondent requested the case’s dismissal based upon the
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:18-vv-01578-UNJ Document 46 Filed 07/08/21 Page 2 of 2
untimeliness of the petition’s filing (under the Vaccine Act’s 36-month statute of
limitations) and his determination that the claim (which arose under a Table amendment)
was not protected by the Act’s “lookback provision.”3 ECF 34. I subsequently issued a
Decision Denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, in which I found that there is
preponderant evidence that Petitioner’s shoulder pain began within 48 hours of his flu
vaccination. ECF 39. I also found that there is preponderant evidence that Petitioner’s
pain was limited to his right shoulder. Id. at 7-8. Because Petitioner’s claim meets the
Table SIRVA requirements, it is not untimely under the Act’s “lookback provision.” Id. at
2, 8.
On June 7, 2021, Respondent filed an amended Rule 4(c) report. ECF 41.
Recognizing my factual findings regarding the onset and location of Petitioner’s pain,
Respondent “advise[d] that he will not defend the case on other grounds4 during further
proceedings before the Office of Special Masters.” Id. at 3. Accordingly, Respondent
“submits that [P]etitioner has otherwise satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury
Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA. Id. at 3, 7-8.
Therefore, 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
3 See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(2), 16(b).
4 Respondent does reserve his right to a potential appeal of my decision. ECF 41 at 3 n. 2.
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01578-1
Date issued/filed: 2021-10-20
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/17/2021) regarding 50 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01578-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/20/21 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1578V
UNPUBLISHED
RAGHU DUGGIRALA, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: September 17, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Reginald C. Allen, Law Office of Reginald Allen, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 10, 2018, Raghu Duggirala 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (SIRVA).3 Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the Decision 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 (2012).
3 In the petition, Petitioner alleged that he received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 24, 2015.
Petitioner at 1. However, the medical records establish that Petitioner’s vaccination actually occurred on
October 4, 2015, more than three years prior to the claim’s initiation. Ex 10 at 4-5. I addressed this issue
in a Decision Denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF 39.

Case 1:18-vv-01578-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/20/21 Page 2 of 5
On June 7, 2021, a ruling on entitlement4 was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to
compensation for a right SIRVA. ECF 42. On September 17, 2021, Respondent filed a
proffer on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$47,000.00. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is
entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $47,000.00, for actual pain and suffering, in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner.
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
4 In the proffer, Respondent “reserve[d] his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review” of
my entitlement ruling and underlying factual findings. ECF 49 at 2 n.2.
5 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:18-vv-01578-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/20/21 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
RAGHU DUGGIRALA, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 18-1578V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On April 24, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“respondent”) filed his
Rule 4(c) Report and a Motion to Dismiss, recommending that entitlement to compensation be
denied and that the petition be dismissed because petitioner’s onset of right shoulder pain was
not clearly within 48 hours of vaccination and it was not clear whether petitioner’s pain and
reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered.
ECF No. 33 at 5-9; ECF No. 34. Respondent contended that because petitioner lacked evidence
to support a Table injury for shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), he
could not allege a claim for actual causation in the alternative utilizing the “lookback” provision
in Section 300aa-16(b) of the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 33 at 6-9. On April 22, 2021, the Chief
Special Master issued a Decision Denying Motion to Dismiss (“Decision”). ECF No. 39.
Specifically, the Chief Special Master found that “that there is preponderant evidence that
Petitioner’s shoulder pain began within 48 hours of his flu vaccination” and “that Petitioner’s
pain was limited to his right shoulder.” Id. at 2, 6-8. The Chief Special Master ultimately

Case 1:18-vv-01578-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/20/21 Page 4 of 5
determined that “because the claim meets the Table requirements for a flu vaccine/SIRVA claim,
it is not untimely under the Act’s ‘lookback provision.’” Id. at 2, 8.
On June 7, 2021, respondent filed an Amended Vaccine Rule 4(c) Report advising that, in
light of Chief Special Master Corcoran’s factual finding that the onset of symptoms took place
within 48 hours and that petitioner’s pain was limited to his right shoulder is the law of the case,
and the medical evidence submitted in this case, respondent did not dispute that petitioner had
satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. ECF No. 41 at 3, 7.
The same day, Chief Special Master Corcoran entered a Ruling on Entitlement, finding
petitioner, Raghu Duggirala, entitled to Vaccine Act compensation for his Table SIRVA injury.
ECF No. 42.
I. Items of Compensation
A. Pain and Suffering
Respondent now proffers that, based on the Chief Special Master’s entitlement decision
and the evidence of record, Raghu Duggirala should be awarded $47,000.00 in actual pain and
suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner agrees.1
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to Raghu Duggirala should be made
through a lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s
1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. Assuming the
Chief Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer, the parties waive
their right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent reserves his right,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Chief Special Master’s June 7, 2021
entitlement ruling and underlying factual findings.
2

Case 1:18-vv-01578-UNJ Document 52 Filed 10/20/21 Page 5 of 5
decision and the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $47,000.00,
representing compensation for pain and suffering, in the form of a check payable to petitioner,
Raghu Duggirala.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
Lump sum payable to petitioner, Raghu Duggirala: $47,000.00
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Acting Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
LARA A. ENGLUND
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Sarah C. Duncan
SARAH C. DUNCAN
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 514-9729
Email: sarah.c.duncan@usdoj.gov
DATED: September 17, 2021
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future medical
expenses, future pain and suffering, and future lost wages.
3