# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-323V Not to be Published

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANNMARIE AUER, * Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: December 14, 2015 * v. * * Entitlement; Brachial Plexopathy; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Tetanus -diphtheria-acellular pertussis AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“Tdap”); Conceded. * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald C. Homer , Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P. C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Camille M. Collett , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT 1

On March 30, 2015, Petitioner Annmarie Auer filed a petiti on seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 Petitioner alleges that she developed brachial plexopathy as a result of a Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pert usis (“Tdap”) vaccine that she received on May 15, 2012.

1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this cas e, I will post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 200 2, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published rulings inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days with in which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secr et or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or simila r files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vacci ne Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole ruling will be available to the public. Id

.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Chil dhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300 aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafte r will be to § 300aa of the Act.2 In her Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent indicate d that the Petitioner’s claim is compensable under the Act. Respondent specifically stated th at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (“DVIC”), Department of Health and Human Services, has reviewed the facts of this case and has concluded that “[P]etitio ner’s brachial neuritis was caused in fact by the Tdap vaccine she received on May 15, 2012.” Rule 4(c) Report at 6. Additiona lly, the Rule 4(c) re port acknowledges that “DICP did not identify any other cau ses for petitioner’s brachial neur itis, and based on the medical records [], [P]etitioner met the statutory requireme nts by suffering the condition for more than six months.” Id. Respondent therefore conclude s that Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages.

In view of Respondent’s concession, and based on my own review of the record ( see Section 13(a)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (a)(I)), I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered va ccine. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV), 100.3(b)(2). A separate damages order will issue shortly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Ashley Yull, at (202) 357-6391.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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