Barbara Hickey v. HHS - Influenza, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) (2025)

Barbara Hickey filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that an influenza vaccine she received on September 19, 2019, caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA). She claims the injury is a Table injury.

Ms. Hickey, an adult, received the flu vaccine in her left shoulder.

She stated that her arm began hurting on her walk home from the pharmacy and was painful enough to interfere with her sleep that night, indicating an onset within 48 hours of vaccination. She described working through the pain for months as a nurse due to her employment contract, which did not allow paid time off and imposed a penalty for missed days.

She eventually sought treatment from an orthopedist once she obtained new health insurance, attributing her pain to the September vaccination. Her husband and a coworker also provided affidavits corroborating her complaints of left shoulder pain following the vaccination.

The respondent argued that the claim warranted dismissal because Ms. Hickey did not present evidence that her symptoms began within the 48-hour timeframe required for a SIRVA claim.

However, the Chief Special Master found that the totality of the evidence, including Ms. Hickey's affidavit, her husband's affidavit, her coworker's statement, and medical records indicating pain and reduced range of motion attributed to the vaccination, preponderantly supported the conclusion that her shoulder pain occurred within 48 hours of vaccination.

The court found that Ms. Hickey had no prior left shoulder condition, that her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to her left shoulder, and that there was no other condition explaining her symptoms.

She also met the requirement of suffering residual effects for more than six months. Therefore, the court ruled that Ms.

Hickey is entitled to compensation for a Table SIRVA. The case will proceed to the damages phase, with the court noting that an extremely modest award for pain and suffering would be appropriate given the delay in seeking treatment and the absence of surgery.