In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-1021V

UNPUBLISHED

HEIDI SEIKEN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: October 8, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

Petitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On August 17, 2020, Heidi Seiken 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 July 22, 2019 Tetanus 

Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges 

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 ¶¶ 10-11. 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1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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 4, 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

and Proffer of Compensation at 1. Specifically, Respondent indicates that 

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

Department of Health and Human Services (DICP), 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 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 fortyeight 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. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a), (c)(10). 

Therefore, petitioner is entitled to a presumption of vaccine causation.

Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that

[w]ith respect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, 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 also avers that she has neither “filed any civil action for [her] 

vaccine-related injury,” nor “received compensation in the form of an award 

or settlement for [her] vaccine-related injury.” Ex. 7 at 3. Thus, in light of the 

information contained in petitioner’s medical records and affidavit, 

respondent concedes that entitlement to compensation is appropriate under 

the terms of the Vaccine Act.

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