Filed: Feb. 04, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 BRIAN H. CORCORAN , Chief Special Master . On October 16, 2018, Michele Bernardo 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 ("SIRVA") as a result of her October 21, 2015 influenza ("flu") vaccination. Petition at 10-12. The case was assigned to the Special Process
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 BRIAN H. CORCORAN , Chief Special Master . On October 16, 2018, Michele Bernardo 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 ("SIRVA") as a result of her October 21, 2015 influenza ("flu") vaccination. Petition at 10-12. The case was assigned to the Special Processi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
BRIAN H. CORCORAN, Chief Special Master.
On October 16, 2018, Michele Bernardo 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 ("SIRVA") as a result of her October 21, 2015 influenza ("flu") vaccination. Petition at 10-12. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 31, 2020, 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 that he
has reviewed the facts of this case and concluded that petitioner's claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; she suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain petitioner's symptoms. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation.
Id. at 6-7. Respondent further agrees that
[w]ith respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, the records show that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Petitioner avers that no civil action or proceedings have been pursued in connection with the vaccine-related injury. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(a)(5) and -11(c)(1)(E); Ex. 9. Thus, in light of the information contained in petitioner's medical records and affidavits, respondent concedes that entitlement to compensation.
Id. at 7.
In view of Respondent's position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA).
FootNotes
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).
