Muller-Carillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-183V
UNPUBLISHED
DULCE CONCEPCION MULLER- Chief Special Master Corcoran
CARILLO,
Filed: February 4, 2020
Petitioner,
v. Special Processing Unit (SPU);
Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Causation-In-Fact; Tetanus
HUMAN SERVICES, Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap)
Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to
Respondent. Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On January 31, 2019, Dulce Concepcion Muller-Carillo 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 she suffered a SIRVA
as a result of her August 2, 2017 tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine .
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
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Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).
On January 31, 2020, 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 indicates that
he has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA
and was caused-in-fact by the administration of a Tdap vaccine on August
2, 2017. There were no other causes identified for petitioner’s SIRVA.
Records indicate that petitioner has suffered the sequela of her injury for
more than six months. Based on the medical records outlined above,
petitioner has met the statutory requirements for entitlement to
compensation. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 13(a)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
11(c)(1)(D). Therefore, based upon the record as it currently stands,
petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the
Act.
Id. at 4.
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
2