Court Opinion

ID: 4126853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-16 21:02:06.575397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:34.732409
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 16-770V
                                   Filed: September 13, 2016
                                         UNPUBLISHED

****************************
D.R.,                                 *
                                      *
                   Petitioner,        *       Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
v.                                    *       Influenza;
                                      *       Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                   *       Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                   *
                                      *
                   Respondent.        *
                                      *
****************************
Amber Diane Wilson, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Chrstine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On June 29, 2016, petitioner 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 a left shoulder injury caused-in-fact by her
August 23, 2015 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On September 9, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she
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
evidence establishes that the injury to petitioner’s left shoulder was caused-in-fact by
the administration of her August 23, 2015, flu vaccine, and that petitioner’s injury is not
due to factors unrelated to the administration of the flu vaccine.” Id. at 3. Respondent

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2National 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).
further agrees that the six months sequela requirement has been satisfied and that
petitioner’s injury is compensable under the Vaccine Act. Id.

     In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                 s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                 Nora Beth Dorsey
                                 Chief Special Master

                                           2