United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Davila v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided June 3, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-1988V UNPUBLISHED

ANGELICA DAVILA, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: May 3, 2021 v.

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

(HPV) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration

(SIRVA) Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Mark Kim Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On December 30, 2019, Angelica Davila 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine administered on September 8, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 29, 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 1. Specifically, Respondent concludes that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria for SIRVA as set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”). Id. at 3.

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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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