United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Byrd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided March 4, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1655V

UNPUBLISHED

JANICE BYRD, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: January 25, 2021 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.

David John Carney, Green & Schafle, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Lauren Kells, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On October 25, 2019, Janice Byrd 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 the “table injury” of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of her October 27, 2016 influneza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 12. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 22, 2021, 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

Specifically, Respondent indicates 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 (“QAI”), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there is no apparent alternative cause. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa- 14(a)(XIV)(D), (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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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.