In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 19-0623V 

UNPUBLISHED 

LAFONDA COLLIER, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: May 24, 2021 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; 

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA) 

   

Bruce William Slane, Law Office of Bruce W. Slane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for 

Petitioner. 

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

 On April 26, 2019, Lafonda Collier 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 received an influenza (flu) vaccination on 

December 6, 2017, and thereafter suffered from a left-sided 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. 

On May 24, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report and combined Proffer 

(“Rule4/Proffer”) in which he concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this 

case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012). 
2

“[P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for SIRVA. Specifically, petitioner had no 

apparent 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 

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 intramuscular vaccine was administered; and there is no other condition or 

abnormality present that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id. at 6. Respondent 

further agrees that Petitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation. Id. 

 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