United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Gibbs v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 22, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0726V

UNPUBLISHED

FRANK GIBBS, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: March 17, 2022 v.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; Respondent. Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

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

Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On May 16, 2019, Frank Gibbs 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 suffered left shoulder injuries related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine received on June 14, 2018. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccine in the United States, his pain lasted longer than six months, and that neither Petitioner nor any other party has ever received compensation in the form of an award or settlement for Petitioner’s vaccine-related injury. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 7, 8; Ex. 1 at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. On March 16, 2022, Respondent filed an amended 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 (ECF No. 43). Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for SIRVA.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “the records show that petitioner timely filed his case, that he received the Tdap vaccine in the United States, and that he satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” 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.