United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Vaughn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided September 16, 2021 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-0590V UNPUBLISHED

DAVID VAUGHN, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: August 16, 2021 v.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Respondent. Brachial Neuritis

Isaiah Richard Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

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

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On May 12, 2020, David Vaughn 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 experienced brachial neuritis after receiving a Tdap vaccination in his left arm on June 21, 2017. Petition at ¶¶ 3, 8. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On August 16, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he states that he does not contest that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, it is Respondent’s position that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for brachial neuritis following a vaccine containing a tetanus toxoid. Id. at 5. Petitioner had: (1) upper left arm symptom present within two to 28 days; (2) upper left arm weakness; (3) EMG/NCS results, along with motor, sensory, and reflex findings, consistent with brachial neuritis; and (4) no other condition or abnormality that would explain his symptoms. Id. at 5-6. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner suffered the residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine administration. 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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.