Webb v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-107V Filed: August 16, 2017 UNPUBLISHED

WILLIE D. WEBB, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Petitioner, Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. Causation-In-Fact; Tetanus Diphtheria (Td) Vaccine; Shoulder SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Injury Related to Vaccine HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA) Respondent.

Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.

Lynn Elizabeth Ricciardella, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On January 23, 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 Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her July 6, 2016 Tetanus Diphtheria (“Td”) Vaccine. See Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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.

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).

On August 16, 2017, 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 indicates that [m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”), have reviewed the petition and medical records filed in this case, as well as the relevant medical literature regarding petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury. Based on that review, DICP has concluded that a preponderance of evidence establishes that the injury to petitioner’s right shoulder was caused by the administration of the July 6, 2016, Td vaccine, and that petitioner’s injury is not due to factors unrelated to the administration of the Td vaccine. See U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1). In addition, given the medical records outlined above, the statutory six month sequela requirement has been satisfied. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 11(c)(D)(i).

Id. at 4.

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