Taylor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-744V UNPUBLISHED

AS, by her mother, PATRICIA Chief Special Master Corcoran TAYLOR, Filed: November 8, 2019 Petitioner, v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; HUMAN SERVICES, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Respondent.

Michael Adly Baseluos, Baseluos Law Firm, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for petitioner. Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On May 20, 2019, Patricia Taylor filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the “Vaccine Act”) on behalf of AS, a minor child. Petitioner alleges that AS’s October 14, 2017 influneza (“flu”) vaccination caused her to suffer Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 31, 2019, 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 indicates that

1 I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This means the

decision 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. Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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).

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). [m]edical personnel at DICP have reviewed the petition and medical record evidence filed in this case. It is respondent’s position that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”). See 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV), 100.3(c)(15).

Id. at 6-7.

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