1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 4

- 227 V

Filed: N ovember 10 , 2014

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

K RYSTYN SNYDER

, *

* Ruling on Entitlement; T dap ;

Petitioner, * Brachial Neuritis

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

J effrey A. Golvash

, B rennan, Robins & Daley, P.C.

, P ittsburgh, PA

, for petitioner

. G lenn A. Mac L eod

, United States Department of Justice, Washington , DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On M arch 25, 2014

, K rystyn Snyder (“ petitioner ”) filed a petition for compensation

un der the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 42 U .S.C. §§ 300aa

- 1 to

- 34 (2006).

The petition alleges that as a result of receiving a T etanus

- diptheria

- acellular

- pertussis ( “ Tdap ” )

vaccine on D ecember 2 2 , 201 2

, s he d eveloped B rachial Neuritis (“ B N ”)

. Petition at ¶ ¶ 3, 9

.

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case,

the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal

Claims , in accordance wit h the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116

Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by

Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any

information furnish ed by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in

substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy .” Vaccine Rule

18(b).

2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended,

42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 1 to

- 34 (2006) (Vaccine Ac t or the Act). All citations in this decision to

individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.2

On N ovember 7 , 2014

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report [R espondent’s Report”], in

which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Report

at 2

. Specifically, respondent concluded , based on the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation

of the Vaccine Injury Ta ble, that BN is an injury on the Vaccine Injury Table for tetanus

containing vaccines and that contemporaneous medical records support tha t the onset of

petitioner’s pain fell within the Table ’ s timeframe for a presumed vaccine injury. I d. at 3

- 4

. Respondent a gree s that petitioner ’ s symptoms and the EMG study results are consistent with a

diagnosis of BN

, and that several of petitioner’s treating neurologists believed that he r BN wa s

most likely caused by the Tdap vaccination

. Id. at 4. Accordingly, respondent concedes that

p etitioner “ meets the c riteria for a Table injury of B N following a tetanus vaccine. ” Id.

In light of respon dent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that petitioner

is entitled to compensation.

s/ Thomas L. Gowen

Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master