Court Opinion

ID: 4094165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-31 20:04:37.734735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:35.431171
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-686V
                                     Filed: August 16, 2016
                                         UNPUBLISHED

****************************
CANDY GLASCOCK,                         *
                                        *
                   Petitioner,          *    Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
v.                                      *    Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
                                        *    (“Tdap”); Shoulder Injury Related
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                     *    to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”);
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                     *    Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
                                        *
                   Respondent.          *
                                        *
****************************
Michael McLaren, Black McLaren, et al., PC, Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Lara Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On June 10, 2016, 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 following an April 13, 2015 tetanus-diphtheria-acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On August 16, 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 agreed that petitioner’s SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the
Tdap vaccination she received on April 13, 2015 Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees
that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine
Act. Id.

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  Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
     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