          In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 18-650V
                                       Filed: April 25, 2019
                                          UNPUBLISHED


    MARY STEWART,

                          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.


Glen Howard Stertevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                     RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On May 8, 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 she suffered “debilitating pain and weakness, restricted
range of motion, and adhesive capsulitis of her left shoulder and arm, which were
caused-in-fact by the [influenza] vaccination” she received on September 27, 2016.
Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that she received the vaccination alleged 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 filed a civil action or received compensation for
her injury, alleged as vaccine caused. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 20-22. 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 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this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).

2   National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
        On April 25, 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
and Proffer at 1. Specifically, respondent indicates that he has “concluded that
petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA.” Id. at 3.

     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
