Rosenthal v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-253
| Fed. Cl. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Petitioner Stephanie Rosenthal filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging left shoulder injury caused by an influenza vaccine administered on October 21, 2014.
- Petitioner alleged residual effects lasting more than six months and that no other action or compensation had been received for the claimed injury.
- The case was assigned to the Office of Special Masters, Special Processing Unit (SPU).
- Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding entitlement, concluding the evidence established petitioner suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) and that the injury was not due to unrelated factors.
- Respondent also stated petitioner met the Vaccine Act’s jurisdictional and statutory requirements for compensation.
- The Chief Special Master accepted the concession and found petitioner entitled to compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner’s left shoulder injury was caused by the Oct. 21, 2014 flu vaccination | Rosenthal alleged her left shoulder injury was caused-in-fact by the vaccination and produced residual effects >6 months | Respondent ultimately conceded that petitioner’s injury is consistent with SIRVA and not due to unrelated factors | Concession accepted; petitioner found entitled to compensation |
| Whether statutory/jurisdictional requirements are met | Petitioner asserted she met requirements (timing, residual effects, no prior recovery) | Respondent agreed petitioner met jurisdictional and statutory requirements | Court found requirements satisfied |
| Whether case should proceed to adversarial litigation | Petitioner sought compensation under Program | Respondent chose to concede entitlement in Rule 4(c) report | Court issued ruling on entitlement based on concession |
| Whether any privacy redactions are required before publication | Petitioner given opportunity to identify private material for redaction | Respondent did not contest redaction procedure | Petitioner has 14 days to move to redact qualifying private material before opinion is posted |
Key Cases Cited
None—no officially reported case authorities were cited in this unpublished ruling.