In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-0449V

UNPUBLISHED

KAREN OWENS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: February 5, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Uncontested;

Table Injury; Tetanus, Diphtheria, 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for 

petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On March 27, 2018, Karen Owens 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 the Table injury of shoulder injury 

related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, 

acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination on April 13, 2015. Petition at 1, ¶ 2. Petitioner 

further alleges that she received the vaccination in the United States, that she suffered 

the residual effects of her SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any 

other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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).
2

12, 14. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special 

Masters.

On October 31, 2019, I issued a fact ruling, finding there is preponderant 

evidence to establish that “Petitioner suffered the residual effects of her injury for more 

than six months.” Fact Ruling at 2, ECF No. 32. Subsequently, Respondent indicated 

he wished to file an amended Rule 4 report and is willing to discuss informal resolution 

in this case.” Status Report, filed Dec. 2, 2019, ECF No. 33.

Respondent has filed his amended Rule 4 report advising that, accepting my 

factual finding regarding the statutory six month requirement “as the law of the case for 

purposes of further proceedings, . . . DICP has concluded that petitioner suffered SIRVA 

as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Rule 4 Report, filed Jan. 31, 2020, at 2, ECF 

No. 37. Respondent adds that “based on the record as it now stands and subject to his 

right to appeal the Ruling of Facts, respondent does not dispute that petitioner has 

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6. 

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/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master