Filed: Apr. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2018
Summary: RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On June 15, 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 ("SIRVA"), resulting from an influenza ("flu") vaccination she received on October 24, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
Summary: RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On June 15, 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 ("SIRVA"), resulting from an influenza ("flu") vaccination she received on October 24, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of ..
More
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On June 15, 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 ("SIRVA"), resulting from an influenza ("flu") vaccination she received on October 24, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On March 31, 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 states that the Division of Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services ("DICP") "believes that the alleged injury is consistent with a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") and that it was caused in fact by the influenza vaccine petitioner received on October 24, 2016." Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that "based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act". Id. at 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.
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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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).
