Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Johnson 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In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-165V Filed: April 13, 2016 UNPUBLISHED
**************************** ANNA JOHNSON, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Influenza; * Shoulder Injury (“SIRVA”); SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * **************************** William Cochran, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, Memphis, TN, for petitioner. Ryan Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On February 3, 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”) following receipt of her September 17, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On April 13, 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 “has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA; that a preponderance of evidence establishes that her SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccination she received on September 17, 2014; and that no other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA were identified.” Id. at 2. Respondent further
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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.
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 (2012). agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2016.