Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Flynn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 18-1675V. (2020)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: infdco20200117726 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 BRIAN H. CORCORAN , Chief Special Master . On October 30, 2018, Deborah Flynn 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 sustained left shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as a result of an influenza ("flu") vaccine received on January 17, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
More

UNPUBLISHED.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 30, 2018, Deborah Flynn 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 sustained left shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration ("SIRVA") as a result of an influenza ("flu") vaccine received on January 17, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 6, 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 notes that "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." Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that "based on the medical records . . . petitioner suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months . . . . [and] has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act." Id.

In view of Respondent's position and the evidence of record, I find 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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).
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