United States Court of Federal Claims, 2020

Kaplan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 22, 2020 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1794V UNPUBLISHED

ANITA KAPLAN, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: December 23, 2019 v.

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

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Respondent.

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Dhairya Divyakant Jani, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On November 20, 2018, Anita Kaplan 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 26, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 16, 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 concludes that Petitioner “has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(D), 100.3(c)(15).” Id. at 6.

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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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