United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Baez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided December 30, 2019 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1727V UNPUBLISHED

RAMONA MIRANDA BAEZ, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: November 15, 2019 v.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)

Michael A. Baseluos, Baseluos Law Firm, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for petitioner. Mollie Danielle Gorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On November 7, 2018, Ramona Miranda Baez 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 received an influenza vaccination on December 29, 2017 and thereafter suffered from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 12, 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 agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation which afford Petitioners a presumption of causation if onset of SIRVA occurs within 48 hours after receipt of a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause. Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that the medical records demonstrate that Petitioner has experienced the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months. Therefore, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.

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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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