Meyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-0719V UNPUBLISHED

GERI MEYER, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: September 23, 2020 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria (Td) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On May 16, 2019, Geri Meyer 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 which meets the Table definition of SIRVA and was caused in fact by the tetanus diphtheria vaccine she received on September 27, 2017. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 16. Petitioner further alleges she received the vaccine in the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her injuries, alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶ 2, 16-18. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). On September 22, 2020, 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. Specifically, Respondent concluded that petitioner suffered a Table injury of left SIRVA.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees “that based on the record as it now stands, compensation is appropriate, as 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