Court Opinion

ID: 4525188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-14 20:01:49.411533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:46.303418
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 18-1713V
                                         UNPUBLISHED

 LISA K. MATHIS,                                              Chief Special Master Corcoran

                         Petitioner,                          Filed: March 11, 2020
 v.
                                                              Special Processing Unit (SPU);
 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                      Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
 HUMAN SERVICES,                                              Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
                                                              Anaphylaxis
                        Respondent.

Nancy Routh Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

       On November 5, 2018, Lisa K. Mathis 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 anaphylaxis as a result of an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 13, 2017. Petition at Preamble.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On February 12, 2020, 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 concedes that Petitioner experienced
anaphylaxis within an hour of receiving the vaccine at issue. Id. at 3. Respondent

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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

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).
further agrees that “there is not preponderate evidence of an alternate cause for
[P]etitioner’s anaphylaxis” and the medical records demonstrate that Petitioner has
suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Id. at 3-4.

       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

                                            2