Filed: Feb. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On January 5, 2018, 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 petitioner suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of her February 24, 2015 tetanus, diphtheria, acellular Pertussis, ("Tdap") vaccination. Petition at 1, 14-15. The case w
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On January 5, 2018, 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 petitioner suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of her February 24, 2015 tetanus, diphtheria, acellular Pertussis, ("Tdap") vaccination. Petition at 1, 14-15. The case wa..
More
UNPUBLISHED
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On January 5, 2018, 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 petitioner suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) as a result of her February 24, 2015 tetanus, diphtheria, acellular Pertussis, ("Tdap") vaccination. Petition at 1, 14-15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 12, 2019, 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 petition and medical records filed in this case, and has concluded that petitioner's alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table.3 Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her left shoulder; pain occurred within 48 hours after the flu vaccine was administered; pain was limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality has been identified to explain petitioner's shoulder pain. See 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a); 42 C.F.R. 100.3(c)(10). Additionally, based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(I).
Id. at 11-12.
In view of respondent's position and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
