Court Opinion

ID: 4403802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-06-05 21:01:56.795983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:52:30.125712
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 18-0137V
                                       Filed: March 1, 2019
                                          UNPUBLISHED

    RICARDO HERNANDEZ,

                         Petitioner,                          Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    v.                                                        Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
                                                              Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                                       Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                                       Administration (SIRVA)

                        Respondent.

David Alexander Tierney, Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On January 29, 2018, Ricardo Hernandez (“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 a flu vaccine
administered on September 27, 2016, caused-in-fact “debilitating pain, restricted range
of motion, and adhesive capsulitis of his left shoulder and arm[.]” Petition at preamble.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1
  The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is 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).
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).
       On March 1, 2019, 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 states that “DICP concludes that the alleged injury is
consistent with SIRVA [shoulder injury related to vaccine administration] that was
caused by the administration of petitioner’s flu vaccine on September 27, 2016. DICP
did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA, the onset of petitioner’s SIRVA
occurred within the time period set forth on the Table, and based on the medical records
outlined above, petitioner meets the statutory requirements by suffering the condition for
more than six months.” Id. at 4.

     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