Villano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-279
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 7, 2017Background
- Petitioner Patricia Villano filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging SIRVA after an influenza vaccination on November 11, 2014.
- Petitioner asserted she suffered residual effects for more than six months and had not filed suit or accepted a settlement for her injury.
- The matter was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
- Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding entitlement, concluding petitioner’s injury was consistent with SIRVA and was caused-in-fact by the November 11, 2014 flu vaccination.
- Respondent further stated no other causes for the SIRVA were identified and that petitioner met the legal prerequisites for compensation.
- The Chief Special Master accepted respondent’s concession and issued a ruling finding petitioner entitled to compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: Did the flu vaccine cause petitioner’s shoulder injury (SIRVA)? | Villano argued her shoulder injury resulted from the Nov. 11, 2014 influenza vaccination. | Government conceded the alleged injury was consistent with SIRVA and caused-in-fact by the vaccine. | Conceded and accepted: preponderance of evidence establishes vaccine caused SIRVA. |
| Entitlement: Has petitioner satisfied statutory prerequisites for Program compensation? | Petitioner maintained she met statutory requirements (injury within Program scope, residual effects >6 months, no civil action/settlement). | Respondent, after review, agreed petitioner satisfied the legal prerequisites. | Held: Petitioner satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation. |
| Procedural posture: Is a special master ruling awarding entitlement appropriate where respondent concedes? | Petitioner sought entitlement ruling. | Respondent’s Rule 4(c) report expressly conceded entitlement. | Special Master accepted concession and issued ruling on entitlement. |
| Public disclosure/privacy: Any redactions required before public posting? | Petitioner given opportunity to identify private medical information for redaction. | N/A (respondent did not contest redactions). | Chief Special Master noted Vaccine Rule 18(b) procedure and allowed 14 days for petitioner to request redactions. |
Key Cases Cited
None — the unpublished ruling did not cite any reported judicial opinions.