Snelson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •   In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 20-98V
    UNPUBLISHED
    PATRICIA SNELSON,                                          Chief Special Master Corcoran
    Petitioner,                         Filed: October 14, 2021
    v.
    Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                    Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                            Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
    Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
    Respondent.                          Administration (SIRVA)
    Emily Beth Ashe, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
    Terrence Kevin Mangan, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
    Respondent.
    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
    On January 29, 2020, Patricia Snelson 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 that she suffered a Table injury – Shoulder Injury
    Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her November 14, 2018
    influneza (“flu”) vaccination. Amended Petition, filed September 23, 2020, at 1. Petitioner
    further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that she
    suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has
    been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a result of her injury.
    See Amended Petition ¶¶ 3, 23-24. 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    1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 October 13, 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 indicates that
    [m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs,
    Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), have reviewed the facts
    of this case and concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with
    SIRVA, as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, petitioner had
    no apparent history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction in her left shoulder;
    she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours
    of vaccine administration; her pain and reduced range of motion were
    limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered;
    and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain
    petitioner’s symptoms. 
    42 C.F.R. § 100.3
    (a), (c)(10). Therefore, petitioner
    is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation.
    
    Id. at 3
    . Respondent further agrees that
    [w]ith respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, the records show
    that petitioner’s claim was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the
    United States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement
    by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than
    six months after vaccine administration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-
    11(c)(1)(D)(i). Petitioner also avers that she has not filed a civil action for
    her vaccine-related injuries and has “never received any compensation in
    the form of award” or civil settlement for her vaccine-related injury. Petition
    at 5. Thus, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all
    legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.
    Id. at 3-4.
    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-98

Judges: Brian H. Corcoran

Filed Date: 11/22/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/23/2021