Goode v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-0985V UNPUBLISHED AMY GOODE, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 11, 2021 v. Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Respondent. Brachial Neuritis Daniel A. Singer, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., Kansas City, MO, for Petitioner. Ronalda Elnetta Kosh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On August 7, 2020, Amy Goode 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 brachial neuritis, a defined Vaccine Table Injury, which, in the alternative, was caused-in-fact by the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine (“Tdap”) vaccine she received on September 2, 2019. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 10-11. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccine in the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other individual has filed a civil action or received 1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). compensation for her injury. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 9, 13-14. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On June 11, 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 has concluded that Petitioner has met the criteria for the Table Injury of brachial neuritis. Id. at 6. Respondent further agrees that “based on the record as it now stands, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the 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