Court Opinion

ID: 4995718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-29 20:05:35.963969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:53.634411
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 20-0748V
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    MELISSA SCHNELL,                                        Chief Special Master Corcoran

                        Petitioner,                         Filed: August 27, 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.                          Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
                                                            Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
      Petitioner.

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

                                   RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

       On June 23, 2020, Melissa Schnell 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”), a defined Table injury, after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria,
acellular pertussis vaccine on July 3, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶ 7. Petitioner further alleges
that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months and that
neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her
SIRVA. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office
of Special Masters.

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  Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
        On August 27, 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 has “concluded that [P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table
criteria for SIRVA.” Id. at 3. Regarding the other statutory and jurisdictional requirements,
Respondent further agrees that “entitlement to compensation is appropriate under the
terms of the Vaccine Act.” Id.

       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