Court Opinion

ID: 4306510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-23 12:01:30.079498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:38:37.095924
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-1004V
                                      Filed: April 23, 2018
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    ANNE KNUDSON,
                                                             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.

Shealene Priscilla Wasserman, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
       On July 26, 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 left shoulder injury as a result of her March
14, 2016 tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 1. The
case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
       On April 23, 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 “concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria
for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of
the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring
after vaccine injection; she suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine
administration; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in
which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or
abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 4. Respondent
further agrees that the case was timely filed, the vaccine at issue was received in the
United States, and that petitioner suffered residual effects or complications of her injury
for more than six months. 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