Court Opinion

ID: 4707289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-28 21:03:48.752107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:42.891571
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 20-1771V
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    JOEL WILSON,                                            Chief Special Master Corcoran

                        Petitioner,                         Filed: June 28, 2021
    v.
                                                            Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                 Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                         Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
                                                            acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
                       Respondent.                          Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Brachial
                                                            Neuritis

Kathleen Margaret Loucks, Lommen Abdo Law Firm, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.

Wei Kit Tai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                                   RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

       On December 7, 2020, Joel Wilson 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 suffered brachial neuritis of the left arm and
shoulder as a result of influenza (“flu”) and tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine administered to him on December 13, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned
to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On June 28, 2021, 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 “concluded that [P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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).
SIRVA”. Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “the case was timely filed, that the
vaccine was received in the United States, and that [P]etitioner satisfies the statutory
severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of his injury for
more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. at 5.

       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