Court Opinion

ID: 4240060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-01-29 21:06:25.744219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:03.722117
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                                          OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                                                   No. 17-246V
                                                              Filed: August 2, 2017
                                                                 UNPUBLISHED

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

                                         Respondent.

                                                                         
Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN, for
petitioner.
Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
 
                                                               RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
       On February 21, 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration as a result of her September 27, 2015 influenza (“flu”) vaccination.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
       On August 2, 2017, 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 indicates as follows:
                                                            
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  Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
       Medical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs,
       Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”), have reviewed the
       petition and medical records filed in this case. Based on its review, DICP
       concluded that petitioner suffered a non-Table injury1 of SIRVA and that
       the preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that the injury was
       causally related to the flu vaccination she received on September 27,
       2015. DICP did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA, and
       based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner met the statutory
       requirements by suffering the condition for more than six months. See 42
       U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore,
       based on the record asit now stands, compensation is appropriate, as
       petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the
       Act.
Id. at 4-5.
     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