HYDE v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
DUFHANE HYDE, Sr., as parent and legal representative of the estate of his son, DUFHANE HYDE, Jr., deceased Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.
United States Court of Federal Claims.
August 16, 2016.
Nature of Suit: 483 Death – Other
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
DUFHANE HYDE, Sr., Petitioner, represented by Andrew Patrick Garza, Law Offices of Andrew P. Garza, L.L.C..
DUFHANE HYDE, Jr., Petitioner, represented by Andrew Patrick Garza, Law Offices of Andrew P. Garza, L.L.C..
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent, represented by Alice Isabel Legat Tayman, U. S. Department of Justice.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
THOMAS L. GOWEN, Special Master.
On March 18, 2016, Dufhane Hyde Sr., parent and legal representative of the Estate of Dufhane Hyde, Jr. (“petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). The petition alleges that the minor child suffered a Table injury, namely a seizure disorder and encephalopathy resulting in death, as a result of the administration of diphtheria tetanus acellular-pertussis (“Dtap”), inactive polio (“IPV”), and haemophilus influenza type b (“HiB”) vaccines on March 20, 2014. Petition at Preamble.
On August 16, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) Report (“Respondent’s Report”) in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Report at 1. Specifically, respondent submits that based on her review of the petition and supporting documentation, she “concludes that Dufhane Jr. suffered a Table injury of encephalopathy within 72 hours of DTaP vaccine administration, and that there is not a preponderance of evidence that his encephalopathy was due to factors unrelated to the DtaP vaccine.” Id. at 3-4; see 42 U.S.C. §300aa-13(a)(1)(B). She adds that, “[i]n light of Dufhane Jr.’s death on March 31, 2014, the statutory severity requirement has been satisfied. Respondent’s Report at 4;see §300aa-11(c)(D)(ii).
In view of respondent’s concession, and the evidence before me, I find petitioner is entitled to compensation based on a Vaccine Table injury of encephalopathy. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (b)(2). A separate damages order will issue.