Thomas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •     In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 19-144V
    UNPUBLISHED
    CYNTHIA THOMAS,                                           Chief Special Master Corcoran
    Petitioner,                          Filed: April 3, 2020
    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)
    Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
    Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
    On January 29, 2019, Cynthia Thomas 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 Shoulder Injury Related to
    Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her November 1, 2017 influneza (“flu”)
    vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
    Office of Special Masters.
    On April 1, 2020, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report Recommending
    Compensation and Proffer of Compensation in which he concedes that Petitioner is
    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    Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
    300aa (2012).
    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 claim meets the Table
    criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain,
    inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular
    vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms,
    examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine
    injection; 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 the case 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 “never received an award or
    settlement for [her] vaccine injuries, nor [has she] filed a civil action.” Ex. 5
    at 1. Thus, in light of the information contained in petitioner’s medical
    records and affidavit, respondent concedes that entitlement to
    compensation is appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-144

Judges: Brian H. Corcoran

Filed Date: 5/4/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/5/2020