LeAnn Diercks v. HHS - Influenza, left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) (2026)

On February 3, 2025, LeAnn Diercks filed a petition alleging a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration after receiving an influenza vaccine in her left deltoid at a Pick-n-Save Pharmacy in Grafton, Wisconsin, on December 28, 2023. She was 47 years old at vaccination and had no documented history of left shoulder pain.

Respondent argued that Ms. Diercks could not establish a Table SIRVA because her symptoms were not limited to the vaccinated shoulder.

The medical record showed that on January 11, 2024, she reported left shoulder pain that began after the December 28 flu shot, radiated down the elbow and under the armpit, and caused painful pressure. Dr.

Christopher Eemisse found pain with palpation and shoulder maneuvers and assessed acute left shoulder pain, stating that the vaccine could have irritated the area and that the exam pointed to irritated rotator cuff tendons. Ms.

Diercks began physical therapy on January 15, 2024, reporting persistent left shoulder symptoms after the flu vaccine, with a dull ache, painful range of motion, positive impingement signs, reduced strength, and mild transient neurologic symptoms into the hand that had resolved the day after vaccination. By April 2024 she still reported burning pain into the fourth and fifth fingers, though her range of motion had improved with therapy.

A July 1, 2024 MRI showed tearing of the intra-articular biceps tendon, partial-thickness tearing of the subscapularis tendon, tendinosis, and mild arthritis. Orthopedist Dr.

Nathan Kopydlowski diagnosed left shoulder subacromial bursitis after vaccine, administered a cortisone injection, and recommended continued therapy. By September 2024 she reported drastic improvement, with nearly normal strength and range of motion.

Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found on March 13, 2026 that Ms.

Diercks's injury was limited to the vaccinated left shoulder for purposes of the Table SIRVA requirement. The ruling resolved that fact issue only; entitlement and damages were not yet finally awarded.