Adams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1787V Filed: October 25, 2019 UNPUBLISHED

LISA V. ADAMS, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Petitioner, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Administration (SIRVA) HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Corcoran, Chief Special Master:

On November 20, 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 she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from the influenza vaccination she received in her left deltoid on October 16, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶ 1. Petitioner further alleges that her injury meets the Table definition for SIRVA, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, that she continues to suffer these effects, and that neither she

1I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This means the decision 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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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).

2National 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). nor any other party has received compensation for her injury alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 4-6. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 24, 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 has “concluded that petitioner suffered a Table injury of left SIRVA.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands, compensation is appropriate, as petitioner 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.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master