In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-858V
                                    Filed: October 14, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
BRENDA SMITH,                             *
                                          *
                     Petitioner,          *     Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
v.                                        *     Influenza;
                                          *     Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                       *     Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                       *
                                          *
                     Respondent.          *
                                          *
****************************
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Lara Ann Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On July 21, 2016, 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”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury as a result of the
administration of her October 9, 2015 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case
was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

        On October 11, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she
concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “opines that petitioner’s alleged injury is
consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) . . . [and]
further agrees that petitioner’s SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccination
administered on October 9, 2015. No other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA were
identified.” 

Respondent further agrees that the statutory six month sequela

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends 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). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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).
requirement has been satisfied and that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Vaccine Act. 

of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                   s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                   Nora Beth Dorsey
                                   Chief Special Master




                                             2