History
  • No items yet
midpage
JOHNSON v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
1:25-vv-00313
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 31, 2025
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket
Case Information

*1 Case 1:25-vv-00313-UNJ Document 29 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2

5 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 25-0313V JAIME JOHNSON, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: September 30, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jonathan P. Groth, Groth Law Firm, Wauwatosa, WI, for Petitioner. Alyssa M. Petroff, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT

[1] On February 21, 2025, Jaime Johnson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq. [2] (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration as the result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination received on January 29, 2023. Petition at 3. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months. Petition at 6. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 26, 2025, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent

*2 Case 1:25-vv-00313-UNJ Document 29 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2 with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of his left shoulder prior to vaccination; pain occurred within forty-eight hours after receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; pain and reduced range of motion was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” Id. at 6-7. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his condition for more than six months, and that based on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

2

NOTES

[1] Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

[2] National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).

Case Details

Case Name: JOHNSON v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Court Name: United States Court of Federal Claims
Date Published: Oct 31, 2025
Docket Number: 1:25-vv-00313
Court Abbreviation: Fed. Cl.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Add Column
No results found

Notebook

Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.

What are you researching?

Are reduced-form regression models acceptable evidence of class-wide impact at the class certification stage?
If Delaware is a company's place of incorporation, is that enough to establish personal jurisdiction and venue in Delaware?
What is the meaning of "after the pleadings are closed" in rule 12c of the frcp? Do pleadings include motions to dismiss counterclaims? Preferred jurisdiction is MA District court, but would take anything from the 1st circuit.