Court Opinion

ID: 6331760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-14 17:04:23.850101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:14.347201
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 20-1626V
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    ANDREA C. EVERHART,                                     Chief Special Master Corcoran

                        Petitioner,                         Filed: March 10, 2022
    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)

Kimberly Wilson White, Wilson Law, P.A. Raleigh, NC, for Petitioner.

Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                                   RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

       On November 19, 2020, Andrea Everhart 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 Table injury – Shoulder Injury
Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of her June 4, 2019 tetanus
diphtheria acellular pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine. Amended Petition, filed April 7, 2021, at 1.
Petitioner further alleges that she received her vaccination in the United States, that she
suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has
been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury.
See Amended Petition at ¶¶ 2, 25-27. 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  Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 March 4, 2022, 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 indicates that

       [m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs,
       Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), have reviewed the
       petition and medical records filed in the case. It is respondent’s position that
       petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table
       (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI); petitioner
       had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her
       pain and reduced range of motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an
       intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms were limited to the shoulder in
       which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality
       was identified to adequately explain her symptoms.

Id. at 5 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10)).

       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