Court Opinion

ID: 4457098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-19 21:02:18.114424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:51:19.216403
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 18-1123V
                                    Filed: September 10, 2019
                                          UNPUBLISHED

    DUSTIN BRADLEY,

                         Petitioner,                          Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    v.                                                        Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
                                                              Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                   acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                           Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
                                                              Administration (SIRVA)
                        Respondent.

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.
Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On August 1, 2018, 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 he received a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine on November 15, 2017, and thereafter suffered from 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.

1The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This
means the ruling 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, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is 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).

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).
       On September 3, 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 states that “petitioner’s medical course is
consistent with SIRVA as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent
further agrees that “petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation
under the Act.” Id.

     In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                  s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                  Nora Beth Dorsey
                                  Chief Special Master

                                            2