Cummings v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-1358V UNPUBLISHED
KATHERINE CUMMINGS and JARED Chief Special Master Corcoran CUMMINGS, Parents of O.C., a Minor,
Filed: June 24, 2022 Petitioners,
v. Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Table Injury; Measles Mumps HUMAN SERVICES, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine;
Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP) Respondent.
Emily Beth Ashe, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 9, 2020, Katherine Cummings and Jared Cummings, parents of O.C., a minor, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). On June 23, 2022, Petitioners filed an amended petition (ECF No. 34). In the amended petition, Petitioners allege that O.C. suffered idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (“ITP”) which was caused by the measles mumps rubella (“MMR”) vaccine received on March 7, 2019. Amended Petition at 1. Petitioners further allege that O.C. received the MMR vaccine in the United States and that Petitioners have never received any compensation in the form of an award or settlement for O.C.’s vaccine related injuries. Amended Petition at ¶¶ 3, 23. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 24, 2022, I issued findings of fact, determining that, although it was close, more likely than not O.C. suffered the residual effects of ITP for more than six months (ECF No. 30).
On March 28, 2022, Respondent filed an amended Rule 4(c) report (ECF No. 31). In it, Respondent reserves the right to appeal the February 24, 2022 fact ruling. Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 6. However, Respondent agrees that, in light of the fact ruling and medical evidence, Respondent has concluded that O.C. suffered an episode of ITP related to her March 7, 2019 MMR vaccination.3 Id. Therefore, subject to his right to appeal the February 24 fact ruling, Respondent does not dispute that Petitioners have satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that Petitioners are entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.