In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-1609V
                                   Filed: September 28, 2018
                                         UNPUBLISHED


    JOAN CREECH,

                        Petitioner,                          Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    v.                                                       Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
                                                             Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                  Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                          Administration (SIRVA)

                       Respondent.


Jessica Anne Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Meredith Burns Healy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On October 26, 2017, 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 related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) causally related to an adverse reaction to the influenza
vaccination she received on October 10, 2015. Petition at ¶¶ 1, 15. Petitioner further
alleges she received the vaccination in the United States, suffered the residual effects
of her injury for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has
brought a civil action or received compensation for her injury, alleged as vaccine
caused. 

1, 16, 19-20. 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1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
        On September 28, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent indicates “[i]t is respondent’s position that
petitioner has satisfied the criteria for SIRVA set forth in the recently revised Vaccine
Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which
afford petitioner a presumption of causation.” 

Respondent further agrees that
“based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for
compensation under the Act.” 

of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                   s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                   Nora Beth Dorsey
                                   Chief Special Master