Kediala Magassouba v. HHS - Influenza, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), right arm pain, and a subcutaneous tissue mass (2025)

Kediala Magassouba, a 53-year-old adult, filed a petition on June 24, 2020, alleging that an influenza vaccination she received on August 30, 2017, caused a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), right arm pain, and a subcutaneous tissue mass. Petitioner contended that her injury met the requirements for a Table SIRVA.

The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to compensation because the vaccination record indicated the vaccine was administered in her left shoulder, while she alleged injury to her right shoulder and arm. The respondent also argued that the petitioner did not demonstrate a Table SIRVA due to lack of onset within 48 hours and failed to show the vaccination caused her alleged injuries.

The Special Master, Daniel T. Horner, considered the evidence, including medical records, affidavits, and medical literature.

The core of the dispute centered on the site of vaccine administration. Petitioner presented medical records and affidavits suggesting the vaccine was given in her right arm, including her own statement and her husband's affidavit, and noted a subcutaneous mass on her right arm.

She also cited medical literature on granulomas as a potential vaccine side effect. However, the Special Master gave significant weight to contemporaneous pharmacy records, specifically a handwritten consent form and a computer-generated service details record, which clearly indicated the vaccine was administered in her left deltoid.

These records were found to be clear, consistent, and contemporaneous. The Special Master found that the petitioner's subsequent medical records, which reported pain in her right arm and noted a lump, were less reliable than the initial administration records, especially given the delay in seeking treatment and inconsistencies in the reported history (e.g., differing timeframes for symptom onset and the diagnosis of a lipoma rather than a granuloma).

The medical literature on granulomas was deemed insufficient to prove specific causation for the petitioner's mass. The Special Master concluded that the evidence preponderated in favor of the vaccine being administered in the left arm, and because the petitioner alleged injury to the opposite shoulder, she could not establish entitlement to compensation.

Consequently, the case was dismissed. Petitioner was represented by Mark Theodore Sadaka of the Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, and respondent was represented by Irene Angelica Firippis of the U.S.

Department of Justice. The decision was issued on March 24, 2025.