Court Opinion

ID: 4034367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-16 12:02:31.772324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:54.709476
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 16-244V
                                      Filed: July 7, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
MELISSA L. WILL,                       *
                                       *
                   Petitioner,         *      Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
v.                                     *      Influenza;
                                       *      Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                    *      Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                    *
                                       *
                   Respondent.         *
                                       *
****************************
Ramon Rodriquez, III, Rawls, McNelis and Mitchell, PC, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.
Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On February 19, 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 as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on
September 26, 2013, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.

        On July 7, 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 “concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
SIRVA, and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she received on September 26,
2013.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that no other cause for petitioner’s injury
has been identified, that petitioner suffered sequela of her injury for more than six

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
months, and that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation 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