              In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                                          OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                                                   No. 16-322V
                                                               Filed: July 21, 2017
                                                                 UNPUBLISHED

                                                                         
    DIANE CHANDLER,                                                      
                                                                             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.

                                                                         
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
 
                                                               RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
       On March 14, 2016, 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 a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her September 24, 2014 influenza (“flu”)
vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
        On July 20, 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.



                                                            
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  Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
        Specifically, respondent indicates that

        DICP opines that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a shoulder
        injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). DICP further agrees
        that petitioner’s SIRVA was caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccination
        administered in her right arm on September 24, 2014. No other causes for
        petitioner’s SIRVA were identified. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B). In
        addition, given the medical records outlined above, the statutory six month
        sequela requirement has been satisfied. See id. at § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i).
        The Petition states that petitioner has never received any compensation in
        the form of an award or settlement in connection with the vaccine-related
        injury. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(a)(5) and 300aa-11(c)(1)(E).
        Therefore, based on the current record, petitioner has satisfied all legal
        prerequisites for compensation under the Act.

Id. at 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
 
