# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: December 1, 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

ROBERT DIMATTEO

, *

* No. 10

- 566 V

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Special Master Hamilton

- Fieldman

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Ruling on Entitlem ent; Conceded;

* Varicella Vaccine; Transverse Myelitis

Respondent. * (“TM”).

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

Patricia Ann Finn , Patricia Finn Esq., Piermont, NY , for P etitioner.

Jennifer Reynaud , United States Departmen t o f Justice, Washington, D.C., for R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On August 19, 2010

, Robert and Susan DiMatteo filed a petition for compensation on

behalf of their minor son, Robert DiMatteo (“Petitioner”), 2 under the National Vaccine Injury

Comp ensation Program (“the Program”)

. 3 Mr. and Mrs. DiMatteo alleged that Hepatitis A and

Varicella vaccination s administered to Petitioner on August 12, 2009 caused him to suffer from

transverse myelitis (“TM”).

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

un dersigned intends to post this decision on the website of the United States Court of Federal

Claims, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002 § 205, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2006). In

accordance with the Vaccine Rules, each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of

any information furnished 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 const itute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule

18(b). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a

proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material

f its within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access.

2 Once he reached the age of majority, Robert DiMatteo was substituted for his parents as the

Petitioner in this case. See Order, dated March 27, 2014, at 1.

3 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42

U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 et seq

. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual

section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.On November 28 , 2014 , R espondent filed a n am ended report pursuant to Vaccine Rule

4(c) in wh ich she concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Specifically,

R espondent agrees that “a preponderance of the evidence establishes that petitioner’s TM was

caused

- in

- fact by the adm inistration of his August 12, 2009 varicella vaccine, and that

petitioner’s TM is not due to factors unrelated to the administration of the August 12, 2009

varicella vaccine.” Amended Rule 4 Report at 1

- 2

.

A special master may determine whether a p etit ioner is entitled to compensation based

upon the record. A hearing is not required. §300aa

- 13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). In light of

R espondent’s concession and a review of the record, the unders igned finds that P etitioner is

entitled to compensation. This ma tter shall now proceed to the damages phase.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Lisa Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master

2