In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-314V

UNPUBLISHED

RONDA BRUM SMITH,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: July 6, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine; 

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

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

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 28, 2019, Ronda Smith 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 a tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis vaccine she 

received on February 29, 2016, caused her to suffer the Table injury of “Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration” (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1, ECF No. 1; Amended Petition 

filed July 22, 2019, ECF No. 12. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual 

effects of her injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior civil action 

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 E-Government 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
as a result of her injury. ECF 12 at ¶¶ 26, 29. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 26, 2022, I issued a Fact Ruling finding “the onset of Petitioner’s SIRVA 

more likely than not occurred within 48 hours of vaccination” as set forth in the Vaccine 

Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for a Table SIRVA. 42 

C.F.R. § 100.3(a) I.C & II.C. (Tdap vaccination); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(10)(ii) (required 

onset for pain listed in the QAI). ECF No. 40 at 2. In reaction, on July 5, 2022, Respondent 

filed an Amended Rule 4(c) Report indicating that (while preserving his right to appeal my 

Fact Ruling) he agrees in light of the Ruling that Petitioner has established the elements 

of a SIRVA Table claim. Respondent’s Amended Rule 4(c) Report at 2, ECF No. 44.

Specifically, Respondent stated as follows:

In light of the Chief Special Master’s Fact Ruling, and medical record 

evidence submitted in this case, DICP has concluded that petitioner 

suffered SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Specifically, 

petitioner had no recent history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction of her 

left shoulder; the onset of pain occurred within 48 hours after receipt of an 

intramuscular vaccination;3 the pain was limited to the shoulder in which the 

vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality, such as 

brachial neuritis, has been identified to explain petitioner’s right shoulder

pain. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a), (c)(10). In addition, petitioner suffered the 

residual effects of her condition for more than six months. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Therefore, based on the record as it now stands and 

subject to his right to appeal the Fact Ruling, respondent does not dispute 

that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under 

the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13.

Id. at 7-8. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation. A Damages Order will issue.

3 Respondent notes: “This criterion is met pursuant to the Chief Special Master’s April 26, 2022 Fact Ruling, 

and respondent does not waive his right to a potential appeal of this issue. In addition, nothing in this Rule 

4(c) Report constitutes a waiver of any defenses that respondent may assert in the damages phase.” 

Respondent’s Report at 8 n. 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master