United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Edwards v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 12, 2022 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-0954V UNPUBLISHED

TREMAYNE D. EDWARDS, Chief Special Master Corcoran

Petitioner, Filed: September 6, 2022 v.

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

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)

Scott B. Taylor, Urban & Taylor, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner.

Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 19, 2021, Tremayne D. Edwards 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccination on November 5, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 6, 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 “concluded that [P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was received in the United States, and that [P]etitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement by suffering the residual effects or complications of his injury for more than six months after vaccine administration.” Id. Respondent also notes that Petitioner has averred that he has “‘not filed a civil action for [his] vaccine-related injuries and has ‘not received compensation in the form of an award or civil settlement for [his] vaccine-related injury.’” Id. at 5 (citing Pet. Ex. 1 at 7).

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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in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