        In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 15-729V
                                    Filed: October 23, 2015
                                          Unpublished

****************************
DARLENE STEELE,                         *
                                        *
                    Petitioner,         *     Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
                                        *     Tetanus Diphtheria (“Td”);
                                        *     Shoulder Injury (“SIRVA”);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                     *     Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                     *
                                        *
                    Respondent.         *
                                        *
****************************
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, PA, for petitioner.
Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                    RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On July 14, 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 she experienced a shoulder injury following
administration of her June 10, 2014 Tetanus Diphtheria (“Td”) vaccination. Petition at 1.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

       On October 23, 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 a preponderance of
evidence establishes that the injury to petitioner’s left shoulder was caused-in-fact by
the administration of her June 10, 2014, Td vaccine, and that petitioner’s injury is not
due to factors unrelated to the administration of the Td vaccine.” Id. at 3. Respondent
further agrees that the statutory six month sequela requirement has been satisfied. Id.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
       In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.

                               s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                               Nora Beth Dorsey
                               Chief Special Master
