Lalonde v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-0186V
UNPUBLISHED
MARYLOU LALONDE, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 12, 2021
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)
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On February 21, 2020, Marylou LaLonde 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine on May 31, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. Petitioner further alleges that she
received the vaccine in the United States, that she suffered the effects of her SIRVA for
more than six months, and that neither she nor any other person has filed a civil action or
received compensation for her SIRVA. Id. at ¶¶ 16-18. 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Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 July 12, 2021, 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 “has . . . concluded that [P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table
criteria for SIRVA.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the
statutory and jurisdictional requirements 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