Ivonne Lutes v. HHS - Influenza, Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) (2023)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On January 12, 2021, Ivonne Lutes filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) in her left shoulder following an influenza vaccination received on October 16, 2019. Petitioner, who was 61 years old at the time of vaccination, presented medical records and witness statements to support her claim that the SIRVA was a Table Injury, meaning it was presumed to be caused by the vaccine.
The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, initially contested entitlement, raising issues about the onset of pain and suggesting that petitioner's pre-existing diabetes might have caused the condition. Special Master Daniel T.
Horner issued a ruling on entitlement on August 11, 2023, finding that petitioner had met her burden of proof for all four criteria of a Table SIRVA, including demonstrating that her pain began within 48 hours of vaccination. The Special Master concluded that the respondent failed to prove that the injury was caused by a factor unrelated to the vaccine.
Consequently, entitlement to compensation was granted. A subsequent decision on November 13, 2023, awarded Ivonne Lutes a total of $82,266.95.
This award comprised a lump sum payment of $76,000.00 for pain and suffering, and two lump sum payments totaling $6,266.95 to satisfy Massachusetts Medicaid liens. The checks for the liens were payable jointly to petitioner and the respective lienholders, with petitioner agreeing to endorse them for satisfaction.
Petitioner was represented by Leigh Finfer of Muller Brazil, LLP, and the respondent was represented by Nina Ren of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The public decision does not describe the specific onset symptoms, physical examination findings, diagnostic studies, or the mechanism of injury beyond the general definition of SIRVA. The decision also does not name any medical experts for either party.