Ball v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-516V Filed: March 5, 2019 UNPUBLISHED SONYA BALL, Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU); v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (flu); Tetanus SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) HUMAN SERVICES, Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) Respondent. Amber Diane Wilson, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On April 12, 2017, 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 she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) and Tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap) vaccinations she received on February 4, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). 2National 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). On February 28, 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 has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a SIRVA, as defined on the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has met all the legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act . Id. In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master