        In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 15-969V
                                    Filed: December 3, 2015
                                           Unpublished

****************************
FRANK STENDAL,                            *
                                          *
                     Petitioner,          *      Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
                                          *      Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
                                          *      (“Tdap”); Shoulder Injury (“SIRVA”);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                       *      Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                       *
                                          *
                     Respondent.          *
                                          *
****************************
Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Traci Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On September 3, 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 he suffered a shoulder injury
following receipt of his September 2, 2014 Tetanus-diphtheria and acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing
Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

        On December 3, 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 petitioner’s injury is
consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it
was caused in fact by the Tdap vaccine he received on or about September 2, 2014.”
Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that no other cause of petitioner’s injury has been

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
identified, that the sequela of petitioner’s injury persisted for more than six months, and
that petitioner has met the statutory requirements for entitlement to compensation. Id.

     In view 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
