In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-1751V

Filed: November 16, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

DIANA L. MITCHELL,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Sands Anderson, PC, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.

Glenn Alexander MacLeod, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On November 8, 2017, 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 her November 14, 2014 influenza (“flu”) 

vaccination caused her to suffer a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration 

(“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the 

Office of Special Masters.

 1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, undersigned is 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). 

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).
On November 13, 2018, 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 

DICP has 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 intramuscular vaccine administration that would explain the alleged 

signs, symptoms, examination findings, and/or diagnostic studies 

occurring after vaccine injection; she 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 intramuscular vaccine 

was administered; and there is no other condition or abnormality present 

that would explain petitioner’s symptoms. Therefore, petitioner is entitled 

to a presumption of vaccine causation.

Id. at 5-6. Respondent further agrees that

the records show that the case was timely filed, that the vaccine was 

received 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. §§ 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i). Petitioner avers that no civil action or 

proceedings have been pursued in connection with the vaccine-related 

injury. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(a)(5) and -11(c)(1)(E); Pet. at ¶15.

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/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master