Albers-Fehr v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-1167V Filed: December 22, 2016 Unpublished

**************************** KIMBERLY ALBERS-FEHR, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Influenza Vaccination;

* Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

*

Respondent. *

*

**************************** Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Douglas Ross, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On September 20, 2016, Kimberly Albers-Fehr (“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” or “Program”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered right shoulder injuries resulting from the influenza vaccination she received on October 11, 2015. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 16. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccination in the United States, has suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed an action or received compensation for her injury alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 16-18. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 22, 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 suffered a non- Table injury of SIRVA and that the preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that the injury was causally related to the flu vaccination she received on October 11, 2015.” Id. at 7. Respondent further indicates that “based on the record as it now stands, compensation is appropriate, as petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master