Court Opinion

ID: 4699084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-06-28 16:04:35.57099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:00.574956
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 19-1691V
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    EMILY HIRST,                                            Chief Special Master Corcoran

                        Petitioner,                         Filed: May 28, 2021
    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)

Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

                                   RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

      On October 30, 2019, Emily Hirst 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 received a “Dtap vaccine” in her left deltoid on
June 11, 2017, and sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”) as defined in the Vaccine Injury Table.” See Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On May 28, 2021, 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 he has “determined that petitioner has satisfied the

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  Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (‘Table’) and the Qualifications and Aids to
Interpretation (‘QAI’) for SIRVA due to an intramuscular [Tdap]3 vaccination.” Id. at 6.
Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioner had no relevant 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 explain her symptoms” and she has therefore satisfied all legal
prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

       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

3
  The Rule 4(c) Report contains a typo identifying the vaccination at issue as the hepatitis B vaccine when
it should state the Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine.

                                                    2