In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1335V

UNPUBLISHED

DEBRA LAMBERT,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: March 10, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

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

Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On August 30, 2019, Debra Lambert 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 left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza vaccine received on October 16, 

2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office 

of Special Masters.

On March 9, 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 agrees that “petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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

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; and 

there is no other condition or abnormality that would explain petitioner’s symptoms.” Id.

at 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.” Id. at 7.

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