Court Opinion

ID: 3210266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-08 12:02:03.770168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:26.572487
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 15-827V
                                      Filed: May 11, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
DAVID PONSNESS,                           *
                                          *
                     Petitioner,          *      Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
v.                                        *      Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccination;
                                          *      Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                       *      Administration (“SIRVA”); Special
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                       *      Processing Unit (“SPU”)
                                          *
                     Respondent.          *
                                          *
****************************
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On August 3, 2015, 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 his January 11, 2013 influenza vaccination caused him to
suffer shoulder injuries. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On May 10, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes
that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report
at 1. Specifically, respondent “believes that the alleged injury is consistent with a
shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’). Id. at 3. Respondent further
agrees that “petitioner met the statutory requirements by suffering the condition for more
than six months.” Id. Respondent also states that “based on the record as it now

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  Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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.
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).
stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.”
Id.

     In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                   s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                   Nora Beth Dorsey
                                   Chief Special Master

                                             2