# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14

- 1075 V

Filed: March 2 , 2015

Unpublished

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

KAREN COMEIRO

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Trivalent Flu Vaccine ; Injection Site

* Injury; Special Processing Unit

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Erika Todd

, Esq., Arrowood Peters LLP, Boston, MA for petitioner.

Justine Walters , Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Vowell

, Chief Special Master:

On November 4, 2014

, Karen Comeiro filed a petition for compensation under

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

, 2 [ the

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Peti tioner alleges that s he suffered injuries to include

“ severe blistering and disfigurement at the in jection site ” which were caused by the

t rivalent fl u vaccine she received on October 8, 2013. 3 The case was assigned to the

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I inte nd to

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 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)) . In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 day s 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 withi n this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Chil dhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2006).

3 Petition a t 1. Initially, petitioner a lso alleged that she suffered an advers e effect on her rheumatoid

arth ritis (an ongoing condition) because she was forced to abstain from taking at least one of her

rheumatoid arthritis medications which was interfering with the h ealing of the injection site injury . Petition

at 4

- 5

. Res pondent disputes vaccine causation for this a dditional injury

. See Respondent ’s Rule 4(c)

Report [ “Res. Report ”] at 2, 9

- 10 . On March 2, 2015, pet itioner ’s counsel informed the OSM staff attorney

managing this case by email that petitioner had agre ed to narrow her claim to exclude any claim of

aggravation of her rheumatoid arthritis.2

On February 27 , 2015 , respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she

concede s that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Res

. Report at 2

. Specifically, re spondent “ concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation for the

local skin reaction that she sustained in her left arm [but ]

. . . denies that compensation

is appropriate for petitioner’s claim that she suffered from an aggravation of her

rheumatoid arthritis as a sequela of her injury. ” Id. ; accord. id at 9

- 10. Petitioner has

agreed to limit her claim to the injury to which respondent concedes. See sup ra note 3

. R espondent agrees that petitioner ’s injury lasted for more than six months

. Res. Report

at 9

- 10.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that

petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

s/Denise K. Vowe ll

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master