# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 1001 V

Filed: November 19, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DINNIA STEHLE

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza ;

* Shoulder Injury ( “ SIRVA ” ) ;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA

, for petitioner.

Douglass Ross , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On September 10, 2015

, 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” or “Program”]. Peti tioner alleges that s he suffered a shoulder injury

cause

- in

- fact by her October 15, 2014 influenza vaccination.

. Petit ion at 1

. The case

was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 18, 2015

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule

4(c) Report at 1 . Specifically, respondent “ has concluded that petitioner suffered a non

Table injury of SIRVA [i.e. a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration] and that

preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that the injury was causally related to

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended

at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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

unwar ranted 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.

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 subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).the flu vaccination she re ceived on [October 15, 2014 3 ]. ” Id. at 3

. Respondent further

agrees that no other cause of petitioner ’ s injury has been identified, that p etitioner ’ s injury persisted for more than six months , and that petition has satisfied all legal

prerequisites for compensation under the act

. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master

3 The language quoted here actually states incorrectly that the implicated vaccination was administered on October

1, 2012. However, this is clearly an inadvertent error. Respondent ’ s report identifies the implicated vaccine as

having been administered on October 15, 2014, in numerous other statements within her report, including her factual

summary and conclusion. See Respondent ’ s Rule 4 (c) Report at 1, 2, 4. She also specifically indicated that

petitioner ’ s injury persisted for six months as of April 15, 2015. Id

. at 3, fn. 2.