Filed: Mar. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On March 14, 2018, Irene Russano ("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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as a result of receiving an influenza ("flu") vaccine on November 17, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to
Summary: UNPUBLISHED RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 NORA BETH DORSEY , Chief Special Master . On March 14, 2018, Irene Russano ("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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as a result of receiving an influenza ("flu") vaccine on November 17, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to t..
More
UNPUBLISHED
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
NORA BETH DORSEY, Chief Special Master.
On March 14, 2018, Irene Russano ("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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as a result of receiving an influenza ("flu") vaccine on November 17, 2015. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On March 15, 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 states that "DICP 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 3-4.
Respondent further states "[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. . . . Thus, in light of the information contained in the record, respondent concedes that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act, and will focus resources on determining the amount of compensation to be provided to petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Vaccine Act." Respondent's Rule 4(c) Report at 4.
In view of respondent's position and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
