Duda v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedOctober 12, 2021
Docket19-31
StatusUnpublished

This text of Duda v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Duda 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.

Bluebook
Duda v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2021).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

********************** DEBRA L. DUDA, * * Petitioner, * No. 19-31V * Special Master Christian J. Moran v. * * Filed: August 10, 2021 SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Onset, shoulder injury * Respondent. * **********************

Mark T. Sadaka, Mark T. Sadaka, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner; Lara Englund, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

FACT RULING REGARDING ONSET1

Ms. Duda alleges a flu vaccine given to her on December 6, 2017 caused her to suffer adhesive capsulitis. Pet., filed January 4, 2019. The parties dispute when Ms. Duda began having shoulder problems. Preponderant evidence supports a finding that Ms. Duda’s shoulder pain began on January 10, 2018 at a relatively mild level and increased in intensity on January 18, 2018.

1 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires that the Court post this ruling on its website. Anyone will be able to access this ruling via the internet (https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7). Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website Procedural History

Represented by Mark Sadaka, Ms. Duda initiated her case on January 4, 2019. With her petition, Ms. Duda submitted some medical records. The case 2

was assigned to the Special Processing Unit. Ms. Duda filed more medical records on July 9, 2019, and a statement of completion on the same day. The Secretary disputed Ms. Duda’s entitlement to compensation. Although the petition did not assert a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), the Secretary indicated that Ms. Duda did not qualify because the evidence did not support a finding that her shoulder problem began within 48 hours of the vaccination. The Secretary also found the evidence insufficient to establish an off-Table claim for adhesive capsulitis. Resp’t’s Rep., filed Dec. 12, 2019. The Secretary’s report prompted an assignment outside of the Special Processing Unit. Order, issued Jan. 22, 2020.

Ms. Duda addressed possible sources of information about her activities in December 2017 through March 2018, via an affidavit. For example, Ms. Duda disclosed she communicated with a facility whose personnel treated her via a MyChart patient portal, Fairview Health. However, when Ms. Duda attempted to retrieve these messages, the posts had been deleted. Exhibit 16 (Pet’r’s Aff., dated Mar. 16, 2020), at ¶ 3.

Ms. Duda also submitted entries to her Facebook account. Exhibits 17-19, 24. She also filed records from two employers: Graphic Systems (exhibit 20) and Lifetime Fitness (exhibit 21). Later, Ms. Duda submitted affidavits from witnesses discussing her condition. Exhibits 22-23.

Once the documentary record appeared complete, the parties were directed to answer specific questions regarding onset. Order, issued Sep. 2, 2020. Ms. Duda responded via an affidavit. Exhibit 26. The Secretary submitted a status report on November 12, 2020.

A hearing was held on March 18, 2021. Witnesses included a chiropractor who treated Ms. Duda before and after the flu vaccination (James Anderson), a business colleague of Ms. Duda (Melissa Belschner), and Ms. Duda. Following

2 Ms. Duda does not allege that the flu vaccine caused her to suffer a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. See Pet.; see also Resp’t’s Rep., filed Dec.12, 2019, at 5.

2 the hearing, Ms. Duda was directed to pursue the patient portal message via a subpoena. Orders, issued April 21, 2021; June 22, 2021. A subpoena facilitated the production of additional material from Fairview Health, namely, electronic messages from and to Ms. Duda and medical personnel at Fairview Health. Exhibit 29. With the submission of those additional statements, the issue is ripe for adjudication.

Standards for Adjudication Petitioners are required to establish their cases by a preponderance of the evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1). The preponderance of the evidence standard requires a “trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the judge of the fact’s existence.” Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). The process for finding facts in the Vaccine Program begins with analyzing the medical records, which are required to be filed with the petition. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–11(c)(2). Medical records that are created contemporaneously with the events they describe are presumed to be accurate. Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, medical records may not always list all problems a person is experiencing. See Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Pursuant to these standards for determining when events did or did not happen, the undersigned finds how the evidence preponderates. In setting forth the findings, the undersigned also cites to the primary evidence that is the basis for the finding. The undersigned recognizes that not all evidence is entirely consistent with these findings. See Doe 11 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 601 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (ruling that the special master’s fact-finding was not arbitrary despite some contrary evidence). Indeed, it is the presence of inconsistent evidence that dictated a proceeding to resolve factual disputes.

Summary of Evidence Ms. Duda was born in 1960. Exhibit 15 ¶ 1. At the time of her vaccination, Ms. Duda was working primarily at Graphic Systems. Exhibit 20 (employment file); Tr. 81, 113-15. She also worked a second job at Lifetime Fitness. Exhibit 21 (employment file); Tr. 81, 116-17. Ms. Belschner sometimes supervised Ms. Duda’s work at Lifetime Fitness. Tr. 44-47. Ms. Duda’s employment at Lifetime 3 Fitness facilitated her exercising four to five times per week. Exhibit 16 at 3; see also Tr. 112. Ms. Duda was in good health. She episodically saw a chiropractor, James Anderson, beginning in 2013. In the appointment closest in time before the vaccination, Ms. Duda told chiropractor Anderson about upper back and neck pain. Exhibit 8 at 18 (July 21, 2017). Ms. Duda did not know whether she had routine gynecological appointments before the vaccination. Tr. 118. On December 6, 2017, Ms. Duda had an appointment at Fairview Clinic. While Fairview Clinic has multiple locations, Ms. Duda visited the one close to her home. Tr. 99-100. The doctor who saw Ms. Duda was Dr. Hedtke. The reasons for the appointment were a checkup and to receive the flu shot. Exhibit 3 at 16; Tr. 84. During this appointment with Dr. Hedtke, Ms. Duda complained about “Chest pain on exertion.” Exhibit 3 at 16. Her family history included cerebrovascular disease in both her mother and father. Id. at 18. Ms. Duda’s oral testimony brought out additional details regarding her family history. Tr. 80. In Ms.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Duda v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duda-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2021.