United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Reitter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided December 5, 2019 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1593V Filed: October 9, 2019 UNPUBLISHED

TRAVIS REITTER,

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

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Brenton Aaron Elswick, Maglio Christopher & Toale, Seattle, WA, for petitioner. Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Corcoran, Chief Special Master:

On October 15, 2018, Travis Reitter (“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 he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 8, 2016. Petition at 1-2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 8, 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 “[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 the case. It is respondent’s position that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (‘Table’) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation.” Id. at 7.

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

1 I intend 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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). 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.