United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Hartley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided February 6, 2019 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-1994V

Filed: December 27, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

ASHLEY HARTLEY,

Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU); v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)

Respondent.

Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Justine Elizabeth Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On December 20, 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 as a result of her November 22, 2016 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1-3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 17, 2018, 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 reviewed the facts of this case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies occurring after vaccine injection; she suffered the onset of pain within forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduced range of motion were limited to the shoulder in which the intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States and that petitioner suffered her condition for more than six months. 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

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). 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).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.