Perez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Federal Claims

Perez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims

DecidedApril 27, 2016

Docket15-1023

StatusUnpublished

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

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

Pincite

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-1023V Filed: December 10, 2015 Unpublished

**************************** GUADALUPE PEREZ, legal guardian * and parent of B.P., a minor, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) * Vaccine; Meningococcal Vaccine; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Cellulitis; Shoulder Injury Related to AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) Respondent. * * **************************** Jack Hull, II, Goldsmith & Hull, Northridge, CA, for petitioner. Debra Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On September 14, 2015, Guadalupe Perez (“petitioner”), as legal guardian and parent of B.P., a minor, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that B.P. suffered cellulitis caused in fact by the measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) and meningococcal vaccines that B.P. received on February 11, 2015. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 9, 2015, 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 “believes that the alleged injury is consistent

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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). with cellulitis that was caused by the MMR and meningococcal vaccines administered in B.P.’s left arm.” Id. at 3.

In view of respondent’s concession to which petitioner agrees 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. 15-1023V Filed: December 10, 2015 Unpublished

**************************** GUADALUPE PEREZ, legal guardian * and parent of B.P., a minor, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”) * Vaccine; Meningococcal Vaccine; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Cellulitis; Shoulder Injury Related to AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) Respondent. * * **************************** Jack Hull, II, Goldsmith & Hull, Northridge, CA, for petitioner. Debra Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On September 14, 2015, Guadalupe Perez (“petitioner”), as legal guardian and parent of B.P., a minor, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that B.P. suffered cellulitis caused in fact by the measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) and meningococcal vaccines that B.P. received on February 11, 2015. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 15. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 9, 2015, 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 “believes that the alleged injury is consistent

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, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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). with cellulitis that was caused by the MMR and meningococcal vaccines administered in B.P.’s left arm.” Id. at 3.

In view of respondent’s concession to which petitioner agrees 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)

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