        In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 15-886V
                                    Filed: November 5, 2015
                                           Unpublished

****************************
CHRISTINE REDLINGER,                      *
                                          *
                     Petitioner,          *      Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
                                          *      Influenza Vaccination;
                                          *      Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                       *      Administration (“SIRVA”);
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                       *      Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
                                          *
                     Respondent.          *
                                          *
****************************
Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Christine Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On August 17, 2015, 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”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) resulting from the influenza vaccination she
received on October 9, 2014. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special
Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On November 2, 2015, 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 “has concluded that a preponderance of
evidence establishes that the injury to petitioner’s left shoulder was caused-in-fact by
the administration of her October 9, 2014, flu vaccine, and that petitioner’s injury is not


1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended
at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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).
due to factors unrelated to the administration of the flu vaccine.” Id. at 3. Respondent
further agrees that “the statutory six month sequela requirement has been satisfied.” Id.

       In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                  s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                  Nora Beth Dorsey
                                  Chief Special Master




                                            2
