              In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                                          OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                                                   No. 17-226V
                                                            Filed: December 11, 2017
                                                                 UNPUBLISHED

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

                                         Respondent.

                                                                         
Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
 
                                                               RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
      On February 16, 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 left shoulder injuries as a result of
her September 10, 2015 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was
assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
       On December 7, 2017, 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 that
              [m]edical personnel at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs, U.S.
              Department of Health and Human Services (“DICP”), have reviewed the
                                                            
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  Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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.
2
 National 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).
       petition and exhibits filed in this case, as well as the relevant medical
       literature regarding petitioner’s alleged injury. Based on that review, DICP
       has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a SIRVA
       that was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she received on September 10,
       2015. DICP did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA, and
       based on the medical records outlined above, petitioner has met the
       statutory requirements by suffering the condition for more than six months
       after the administration of the vaccine. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B);
       42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i); see also Pet. Ex. 3 at 33. Therefore,
       based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal
       prerequisites for compensation under the Act.
Id. at 3-4.
     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
 
