Mora v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 24-1064V

PEDRO MORA, for and on behalf of his minor child, F.M.A., Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: April 1, 2025 v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Sean Frank Greenwood, Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Julianna Rose Kober, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On July 12, 2024, Pedro Mora filed a petition on behalf of his son, F.M.A., a minor child, for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that F.M.A. suffered from immune thrombocytopenia purpura (“ITP”) as a result of a measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine (“MMRV vaccine”) administered to F.M.A. on September 3, 2021. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On February 24, 2025, 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 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). 1. Specifically, Respondent states that, petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (‘QAI’) for ITP following an MMR vaccine, and there is not a factor unrelated that would otherwise explain his condition.” Id. at 10-11.

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