Hooper v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Federal Claims

Hooper v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims

DecidedSeptember 19, 2016

Docket16-355

StatusPublished

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

Hooper v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-355V Filed: June 23, 2016 UNPUBLISHED

**************************** JAMES HOOPER, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Hepatitis B (“Hep B”); Shoulder Injury * Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Unit (“SPU”) * * Respondent. * * **************************** Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On March 18, 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 following a November 10, 2014 vaccination for hepatitis B (“Hep B”), he suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 22, 2016, respondent’s counsel filed a 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 “concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was caused in fact by the Hep B vaccine he received on or about November 10, 2014.”

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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). Id. at 3-4. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 4.

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. 16-355V Filed: June 23, 2016 UNPUBLISHED

**************************** JAMES HOOPER, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Hepatitis B (“Hep B”); Shoulder Injury * Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Unit (“SPU”) * * Respondent. * * **************************** Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On March 18, 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 following a November 10, 2014 vaccination for hepatitis B (“Hep B”), he suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 22, 2016, respondent’s counsel filed a 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 “concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was caused in fact by the Hep B vaccine he received on or about November 10, 2014.”

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). Id. at 3-4. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 4.

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)

Hooper v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooper-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2016.