In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-187V

Filed: June 12, 2013

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

LINDA JEANETTE DRIVER, *

* NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 Petitioner, * 

 * 

v. * Entitlement; concession;

 * (Tdap) vaccine; brachial neuritis.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

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

Douglas Lee Burdette, Burkett & Burdette, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner

Alexis Babcock, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

UNPUBLISHED RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT1

On March 12, 2013, Linda Driver (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking compensation for 

her injuries resulting from the administration of a tetanus-diptheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) 

vaccine. Petitioner seeks compensation pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 

1

Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the Special Master’s action in this 

case, the Special Master intends to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 113 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). All decisions of the Special Master will be made available to the public 

unless they contain trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged and 

confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would clearly be an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision or designated substantive order is filed, 

a party has 14 days to identify and to move to redact such information before the document’s 

disclosure. Absent a timely motion to redact, the decision will be made available to the public in 

its entirety. If the Special Master, upon review of a timely-filed motion, agrees that the 

identified material fits within the categories listed above, the Special Master shall redact such 

material from the decision made available to the public. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4); Vaccine 

Rule 18(b).

1

 
of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she received the 

vaccination on June 20, 2012, and that she suffered brachial neuritis as a result. 

In the Rule 4(c) report, Respondent conceded that Petitioner’s claim is compensable 

under the Act. Respondent stated that, in this case, Petitioner “suffered from a Table brachial 

neuritis, and that there was not a preponderance of evidence that the brachial neuritis was due to 

factors unrelated to the vaccination. Therefore, compensation is appropriate.” Respondent’s 

Rule 4 report at 4.

Special masters may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to compensation based 

upon the record. A hearing is not required. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). The 

record demonstrates that seven (7) days following her receipt of the vaccinations, Petitioner 

sought medical treatment for complaints of left arm pain and numbness. Respondent’s Rule 4 

report at 2. Due to Petitioner’s ongoing complaints of “weakness and her muscles just not 

working right,” Petitioner was referred to a neurologist. Id. at 3. Petitioner underwent 

electrodiagnositic studies of the upper left extremity and was diagnosed with brachial neuritis or 

radiculitis. Petitioner’s Ex. 2 at 156-57. Based upon a review of the record as a whole, the 

undersigned finds that Petitioner has established that she is entitled to compensation for her

injuries. 

Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to compensation. This matter shall now proceed to 

the damages phase.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Daria J. Zane 

Daria J. Zane

Special Master

2 All preexisting deadlines are CANCELLED.

2