United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Bailey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided March 1, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1034V UNPUBLISHED

BRIDGET BAILEY on behalf of B.S., a Chief Special Master Corcoran minor child,,

Filed: January 20, 2022 Petitioner,

v. Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Table Injury; Rotavirus Vaccine; HUMAN SERVICES, Intussusception

Respondent.

Danielle Strait, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. Madelyn Weeks, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On March 5, 2021, Bridget Bailey, on behalf of B.S., 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 B.S. suffered intussusception caused by a rotavirus vaccine on or about August 10, 2018. Petition at 1-2. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United States, that B.S.’s injury resulted in inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention, and neither Petitioner nor any other party has received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for B.S.’s vaccine-related injuries. Petition at 3-4. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On January 18, 2022, 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 has reviewed the records filed in this case and concluded that Petitioner is entitled to a presumption of causation. Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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 section 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.