Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Buras v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17-1012 (2018)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: 17-1012 Visitors: 14
Judges: Nora Beth Dorsey
Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-1012V Filed: April 13, 2018 UNPUBLISHED RICKY BURAS, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Petitioner, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. Causation-In-Fact; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury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. Brian L. Cinelli, Marcus @ Cinelli, LLP, Williamsville, NY, for petitioner. Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D
More
              In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                                          OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                                                   No. 17-1012V
                                                               Filed: April 13, 2018
                                                                  UNPUBLISHED

                                                                         
    RICKY BURAS,                                                         
                                                                             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.

                                                                         
Brian L. Cinelli, Marcus @ Cinelli, LLP, Williamsville, NY, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
 
                                                               RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
       On July 27, 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 he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered on
October 19, 2016. Petition at 1, 10. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
        On April 9, 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 while petitioner does not qualify as suffering a
Table SIRVA, his petitioner’s alleged injury was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine. Id. at

                                                            
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).
7-8. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has met the statutory requirements for
entitlement to compensation. 
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
 

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer