Gomes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Federal Claims

Gomes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims

DecidedApril 20, 2017

Docket16-809

StatusPublished

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

Gomes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-809V Filed: December 15, 2016 UNPUBLISHED

**************************** LUISA GOMES, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular-Pertussis * (“Tdap”); Shoulder Injury Related to SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) * Respondent. * * **************************** Ronald Homer, Conway, Homber, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Alice Tayman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 7, 2016, 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”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination in her right shoulder on July 16, 2013. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 15, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that a preponderance of evidence established that the injury to petitioner’s right shoulder was caused by the July 16, 2013 Tdap vaccination. Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that petitioner’s right shoulder injury is compensable as a “caused-in-fact” injury under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 4.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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). In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

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

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-809V Filed: December 15, 2016 UNPUBLISHED

**************************** LUISA GOMES, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular-Pertussis * (“Tdap”); Shoulder Injury Related to SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) * Respondent. * * **************************** Ronald Homer, Conway, Homber, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Alice Tayman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 7, 2016, 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”) as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination in her right shoulder on July 16, 2013. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 15, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that a preponderance of evidence established that the injury to petitioner’s right shoulder was caused by the July 16, 2013 Tdap vaccination. Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that petitioner’s right shoulder injury is compensable as a “caused-in-fact” injury under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 4.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends 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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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). In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gomes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomes-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2017.