Opinion

Monnens v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
Filed
Dec 30, 2019
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Brian H. Corcoran
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1220V

UNPUBLISHED

JOSHUA MONNENS and ELISABETH Chief Special Master Corcoran

MONNENS, on behalf of R.M., a minor

child, Filed: November 21, 2019

Petitioners, Special Processing Unit (SPU);

v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Rotavirus Vaccine;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Intussusception

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Glynn Weldon Gilcrease, Jr., Law Office of Glynn W. Gilcrease, Jr., PC, Tempe, AZ, for

petitioner.

Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for

respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On August 16, 2019, Joshua and Elisabeth Monnens filed a petition for

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.

§300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act”), on behalf of their minor child, R.M. Petitioners

allege that R.M. suffered from an intussusception as a result of receiving a rotavirus

vaccination on June 11, 2018. Petition at 1. 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am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), Petitioners have 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.

2National 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 November 20, 2019, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioners are entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “[P]etitioners are entitled to a

presumption of causation because R.M.’s intussusception meets the criteria of the

Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “[P]etitioners have

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

Petitioners are entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.