In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-725V

UNPUBLISHED

STACEY HOSPES,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: October 12, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On June 15, 2020, Stacey Hospes 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 Table injury – shoulder injury related 

to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) – as a result of her November 16, 2018 influneza 

(“flu) vaccination. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges the vaccine was administered 

within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than 

six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her 

behalf as a result of her injury. See Petition ¶¶ 2, 14-16. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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).
2

On October 7, 2021, 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. Specifically, Respondent indicates that

[m]edical personnel at DICP [Division of Injury Compensation Programs, 

Department of Health and Human Services] have reviewed the facts of this 

case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for 

SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or 

dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to her vaccination that would

explain the alleged symptoms and examination findings occurring after 

vaccine injection; she more likely than not suffered the onset of pain within 

forty-eight hours of vaccine administration; her pain and reduced range of 

motion were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered;3

and there is no other condition or abnormality present that would explain

petitioner’s symptoms. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10). Therefore, petitioner 

is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation.

Id. at 5-6. Respondent further agrees that

this case was timely filed, that petitioner received her vaccination in the 

United States, and that petitioner satisfies the statutory severity requirement 

by suffering the residual effects or complications of her injury for more than 

six months after vaccine administration. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa11(c)(1)(D)(i). Thus, in light of the information contained in petitioner’s 

medical records, respondent concedes that entitlement to compensation is 

appropriate under the terms of the Vaccine Act.

Id. at 6.

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

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3 Respondent notes in his Rule 4 (c) Report that “[a]lthough petitioner did not file any records 

documenting the site of vaccine administration, she consistently reported symptoms in her left shoulder 

and attributed these symptoms to her vaccination.” Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 6 n6 (citing Pet. 

Exs. 2-3).