         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 18-888V
                                      Filed: August 22, 2019
                                          UNPUBLISHED


    LISA SARGENT,

                         Petitioner,                          Special Processing Unit (SPU);
    v.                                                        Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
                                                              Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND                                   acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;
    HUMAN SERVICES,                                           Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
                                                              Administration (SIRVA)
                        Respondent.


Summer Pope Abel, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On June 21, 2018, 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 “her receipt of a Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine on June 7, 2017, caused her to suffer a right-sided shoulder injury.”
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.

1The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This
means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is 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).

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 August 22, 2019, 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 states that “petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for
SIRVA.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that “petitioner’s SIRVA and its sequela
persisted for more than six months after the administration of the vaccine.” Id. at 6.

     In view 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




                                             2
