Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1705V UNPUBLISHED
JOSHUA BROWN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 16, 2021 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On November 4, 2019, Joshua Brown 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 received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 27, 2018 and subsequently suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1, 4-5. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 16, 2021, 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 compensation is appropriate in this case.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). Id. at 1. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 4.
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brown v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2021.