Royster v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: April 5, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * VENETIA ROYSTER, * Unpublished as natural guardian and legal * representative of her minor daughter, * M.L., *
* Petitioner, * No. 23-460VV
* v. * Special Master Gowen
* SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession. AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy R. Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner. Julianna R. Kober, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1 On March 31, 2023, Venetia Royster, as natural guardian and legal representative of her minor daughter, M.L., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleges that M.L. developed an intramuscular methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”) abscess as a result of receiving the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis vaccine (“DTaP vaccine”) on January 24, 2022. Id. Petitioner filed medical records to accompany her claim. See Petitioner’s (“Pet’r”) Exhibits (“Exs.”) 1-7.
On April 5, 2024, respondent filed the Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this matter. Respondent’s Report (“Resp. Rept.”) (ECF No. 17). Specially, respondent states:
…medical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”), have reviewed the Petition and supporting documentation filed in this case and conclude that M.L. developed a non-specific mass on her left leg, which was more likely than not caused by administration of DTaP vaccination at the same location. No other causes for M.L.’s non-specific mass have been identified. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B).
Resp. Rept. at 7. In addition, petitioner has satisfied the statutory requirement that M.L.’s injury lasted for at least six-months, or resulted in “inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention,” as required by § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i), (iii). Id. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal pre-requisites for compensation under the Act. Id.
In light of respondent’s position and the evidence in the record, I find that petitioner is entitled to compensation. A separate damages order will be issued.
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.