Cole v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Cole v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Cole 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In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-911V Filed: March 11, 2015 Unpublished
**************************** JANETTE COLE, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis * (Tdap) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related SECRETARY OF HEALTH * to Vaccine Administration; SIRVA; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit * Respondent. * * **************************** Paul R. Brazil, Esq., Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA for petitioner. Alexis Babcock, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On September 26, 2014, Janette Cole filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she “suffered shoulder injuries which were caused in fact” by the Tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis [“Tdap”] vaccination she received on December 27, 2013. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On March 11, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes “compensation is appropriate” in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 3. Specifically, respondent “concludes that Ms. Cole suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration, a non-Table injury, and that the preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that the injury was causally related to the vaccination.” Id.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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.
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 (2006). In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
s/Denise K. Vowell Denise K. Vowell 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
Cole v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2015.