Howard-Lucas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 23-804V

TRENNESE HOWARD-LUCAS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: June 25, 2024 v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Elizabeth Andary, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On June 1, 2023, Trennese Howard-Lucas (“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 from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on January 6, 2022. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made

publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).

On June 24, 2024, 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, ECF No. 18. Specifically, Respondent indicated that “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner “has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

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