Shapin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-214V Filed: May 31, 2016 UNPUBLISHED **************************** MARNI SHAPIN, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Influenza; Shoulder Injury Related to * Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”); SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * **************************** Amber Diane Wilson, Maglio Christopher and Toale, Washington D.C., for petitioner. Glenn A. MacLeod, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On February 12, 2016, 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 her receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 22, 2014, caused her to suffer a left shoulder injury. Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On May 27, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “concluded that petitioner’s alleged left shoulder injury is consistent with a SIRVA [shoulder injury related to vaccine administration] injury, and that it was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine she received on October 22, 2014.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that petitioner’s left SIRVA and its sequela persisted for more than six months after administration of the vaccine and, based on the record as it 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned 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). now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master 2