Scott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-983
| Fed. Cl. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Petitioner Brady Scott filed a Vaccine Program petition claiming a left shoulder injury (SIRVA) caused by an influenza vaccine administered on October 12, 2015.
- Petitioner alleged residual effects lasting more than six months and that no one had been compensated for the alleged vaccine-caused injury.
- The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (SPU) of the Office of Special Masters.
- Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding entitlement, concluding by a preponderance of evidence that the October 12, 2015 flu vaccine caused petitioner’s left shoulder injury and that the six-month sequela requirement was satisfied.
- The Special Master accepted respondent’s concession and found petitioner entitled to compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: Did the flu vaccine cause petitioner’s shoulder injury? | Scott argued the October 12, 2015 flu vaccine caused SIRVA to his left shoulder. | HHS conceded the evidence shows the vaccine caused the injury. | Concession accepted; causation found by preponderance. |
| Statutory six-month requirement: Has petitioner suffered residual effects for >6 months? | Scott asserted residual effects exceeded six months. | HHS agreed the six-month sequela requirement was met. | Requirement satisfied. |
| Compensation eligibility under Vaccine Act | Scott sought entitlement to Program compensation for vaccine-caused injury. | HHS conceded entitlement in its Rule 4(c) report. | Petitioner entitled to compensation. |
| Procedural disposition: Sufficiency of record for finding entitlement | Scott relied on his petition and medical evidence. | HHS deemed the record sufficient and conceded. | Special Master found evidence and concession sufficient and awarded entitlement. |
Key Cases Cited
None (the decision rests on respondent’s Rule 4(c) concession and statutory requirements; no published case law with official reporter citations was relied upon in the ruling).