Filed: Jan. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2020
Summary: RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 BRIAN H. CORCORAN , Chief Special Master . On December 3, 2018, Ronny Echeverri 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 he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result of an adverse reaction to the influenza vaccination he received on December 30, 2015. Petition at 1, 3. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccination in the
Summary: RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 BRIAN H. CORCORAN , Chief Special Master . On December 3, 2018, Ronny Echeverri 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 he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result of an adverse reaction to the influenza vaccination he received on December 30, 2015. Petition at 1, 3. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccination in the U..
More
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
BRIAN H. CORCORAN, Chief Special Master.
On December 3, 2018, Ronny Echeverri 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 he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result of an adverse reaction to the influenza vaccination he received on December 30, 2015. Petition at 1, 3. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccination in the United States, that he suffered the residual effects of his GBS for more than six months, and that neither he nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his GBS. Id. at 4. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On January 16, 2020, 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 asserts that Petitioner "suffered GBS following a flu vaccine within the Table time period, and there is not a preponderance of the medical evidence that petitioner's GBS was due to a factor unrelated to the vaccination. The claim also meets the statutory severity requirements because petitioner experienced sequelae of his GBS for more than six months." Id. at 4 (citing 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a); 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-13(a)(1), 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Respondent further agrees that "[t]he scope of damages to be awarded is limited to petitioner's GBS and its related sequelae only." 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).
