Court Opinion

ID: 4313724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-19 20:02:03.860594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:54.645570
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 17-1296V
                                      Filed: June 6, 2018
                                        UNPUBLISHED

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

                       Respondent.

Glen Howard Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
      On September 20, 2017, 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 Shoulder Injury Related to
Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine she received in her left upper arm on January 1, 2016. Petition at 1-2.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
        On June 5, 2018, 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 had no history of pain, inflammation, or
dysfunction of her left shoulder, the onset of pain occurred within forty-eight hours after

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
receipt of an intramuscular [vaccination], the pain was limited to the shoulder where the
vaccine was administered, and no other condition or abnormality, such as brachial
neuritis, has been identified to explain petitioner’s shoulder pain.” 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