Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Skye v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 18-962V. (2018)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20190207a27 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2018
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On July 3, 2018, petitioners filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the "Vaccine Act"). Petitioners allege that D.S.'s July 7, 2015 measles-mumps-rubella and varicella vaccine ("MMR-V") caused D.S. to suffer from idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura ("ITP") Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of
More

UNPUBLISHED

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On July 3, 2018, petitioners filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the "Vaccine Act"). Petitioners allege that D.S.'s July 7, 2015 measles-mumps-rubella and varicella vaccine ("MMR-V") caused D.S. to suffer from idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura ("ITP") Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 13, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioners are entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent's Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent

has concluded that petitioners are entitled to a presumption of causation because D.S.'s ITP meets the criteria of the Vaccine Injury Table. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(V). Specifically, D.S.'s ITP manifested between seven and thirty days after her receipt of the second dose of the MMR vaccine, and there is not preponderant evidence that her condition was due to a factor unrelated to the vaccine. See id.; 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a).

Id. at 3-4. Respondent further agrees that

based on the medical records outlined above, D.S.'s ITP and its sequela persisted for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioners have satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.

Id. at 4.

In view of respondent's position and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioners are entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is 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).
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

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