R. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Federal Claims

R. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims

DecidedApril 11, 2022

Docket20-652

StatusUnpublished

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

R. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-0652V UNPUBLISHED

L. R., Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: December 22, 2021 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)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On May 28, 2020, L. R. 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 right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Tetanus diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine administered on December 5, 2017. Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months after administration of the Td vaccine, and no lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone, including Petitioner, due to her vaccine- related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 10-12. 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). On December 21, 2021, 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 agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that “the records show that petitioner timely filed her case, that she received the Td vaccine in the United States, and that she satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” 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

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. 20-0652V UNPUBLISHED

L. R., Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: December 22, 2021 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)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On May 28, 2020, L. R. 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 right shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Tetanus diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine administered on December 5, 2017. Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United States, she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months after administration of the Td vaccine, and no lawsuits have been filed or settlements or awards accepted by anyone, including Petitioner, due to her vaccine- related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 10-12. 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). On December 21, 2021, 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 agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that “the records show that petitioner timely filed her case, that she received the Td vaccine in the United States, and that she satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

R. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2022.