Marna Harmon v. HHS - Tdap, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) (2024)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Marna Harmon filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on March 14, 2023. She alleged that after receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination on June 20, 2022, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) with residual effects lasting more than six months.
The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Petitioner is entitled to compensation. The respondent specifically stated that Petitioner's alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and did not dispute that Petitioner satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation.
Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that Marna Harmon is entitled to compensation.
The case is proceeding to determine the award amount. Petitioner was represented by Jonathan Joseph Svitak of Shannon Law Group, P.C., and Respondent was represented by Mary Novakovic of the U.S.
Department of Justice. The decision on entitlement was issued on September 12, 2024.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Marna Harmon received a Tdap vaccination on June 20, 2022, and alleged a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent conceded entitlement, stating the alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table and that Petitioner met all legal prerequisites. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or clinical details of the condition. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued a ruling on entitlement on September 12, 2024, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation. The case is pending determination of the award amount. Petitioner's counsel was Jonathan Joseph Svitak, and Respondent's counsel was Mary Novakovic.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_23-vv-00367