In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1482V

UNPUBLISHED

MARY RIVIERE,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 8, 2019

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Causation-In-Fact; Pneumococcal 

Conjugate Vaccine; Cellulitis

Shealene Priscilla Mancuso, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On September 26, 2018, Mary Riviere filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered cellulitis, sepsis injuries and left 

extremity injuries caused in fact by the administration of the pneumococcal conjugate 

vaccine she received on November 3, 2016. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 14. Petitioner further 

alleges that she received the influenza vaccination in the United States, that she 

suffered the residual effects of her injuries for more than six months, and that neither 

she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her injuries, 

alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 14-16. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1

I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This means the 

decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 

18(b), petitioner has 14 days 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 within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished 

decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 National Childhood 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 (2012).
2

On November 8, 2019, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent “[has] concluded that a preponderance of the 

medical evidence establishes that petitioner’s left upper extremity cellulitis was causedin-fact by the pneumococcal vaccine she received on November 3, 2016.” Id. at 4. 

Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has 

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act.” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master