Stewart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Stewart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Stewart 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. 24-693V
BERNARD STEWART, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 18, 2025 v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Laura Levenberg, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On May 1, 2024, Bernard Stewart (“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 he suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on June 17, 2023. Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his injury for more than six months. Id. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 18, 2025, Respondent filed his combined Rule 4(c) report and Proffer in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1, ECF No. 18. Specifically, Respondent indicated that 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). “[P]etitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 3. Respondent agrees that 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Stewart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2025.