Schmitt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16-1103V. (2017)
Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
Number: infdco20180413b71
Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On September 2, 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 she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") following an influenza ("flu") vaccine administered on October 8, 2014. Petition at 1-30. The case was assigned to the Special
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On September 2, 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 she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") following an influenza ("flu") vaccine administered on October 8, 2014. Petition at 1-30. The case was assigned to the Special ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On September 2, 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 she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") following an influenza ("flu") vaccine administered on October 8, 2014. Petition at ¶¶ 1-30. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 6, 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 concluded that petitioner experienced a SIRVA that was more likely than not caused by the October 8, 2014 flu vaccine Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.
In view of respondent's concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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).
Source: Leagle
