Hernandez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-0137V Filed: March 1, 2019 UNPUBLISHED

RICARDO HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU); v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; SECRETARY OF HEALTH Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine AND HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA) Respondent.

David Alexander Tierney, Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On January 29, 2018, Ricardo Hernandez (“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 a flu vaccine administered on September 27, 2016, caused-in-fact “debilitating pain, restricted range of motion, and adhesive capsulitis of his left shoulder and arm[.]” Petition at preamble.

The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website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

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 March 1, 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 states that “DICP concludes that the alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA [shoulder injury related to vaccine administration] that was caused by the administration of petitioner’s flu vaccine on September 27, 2016. DICP did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA, the onset of petitioner’s SIRVA occurred within the time period set forth on the Table, and based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner meets the statutory requirements by suffering the condition for more than six months.” 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