Ward v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
16-278
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Petitioner Rosemarie Ward filed a Vaccine Program petition alleging that an influenza vaccination on November 22, 2013 caused a shoulder injury (SIRVA).
- Petition alleges the injury persisted with residual effects for more than six months and no civil action or prior recovery exists.
- Case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
- Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding entitlement, stating the alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA and that Althen requirements are satisfied.
- Respondent also agreed petitioner meets statutory prerequisites for compensation, including the six-month residual-effects requirement.
- Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey issued a ruling finding petitioner entitled to compensation based on respondent’s concession and the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner suffered a vaccine-caused shoulder injury (SIRVA) | Ward alleges flu vaccine caused her shoulder injury | Respondent concedes the injury is consistent with SIRVA and caused-in-fact by the vaccination | Entitlement found; respondent conceded causation and injury (SIRVA) |
| Whether Althen causation requirements are met | Petitioner contends Althen elements satisfied | Respondent agrees Althen requirements are met | Court accepted concession and found Althen satisfied |
| Whether statutory prerequisites for compensation are satisfied (residual effects >6 months, no prior recovery) | Petitioner asserts she suffered residual effects >6 months and has not litigated or recovered elsewhere | Respondent agrees statutory prerequisites are met | Court found statutory prerequisites satisfied |
| Whether special master should rely on respondent’s Rule 4(c) concession | Petitioner relies on concession and the record | Respondent explicitly conceded entitlement in Rule 4(c) report | Court granted entitlement based on concession and evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- None (decision rests on respondent's concession and the administrative record).
