In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-0034V
Filed: May 12, 2015
Unpublished
****************************
RACHEL FAUCHER, *
*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
v. * Influenza or Flu Vaccine; Shoulder
* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)
*
Respondent. *
*
****************************
Ronald Homer, Esq., Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Claudia Gangi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Vowell, Chief Special Master:
On January 12, 2015, Rachel Faucher 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”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury
related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) which was caused by the influenza vaccine
she received on September 11, 2013. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the
Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 12, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes
that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report
at 4. Specifically, respondent “concludes that petitioner suffered a non-Table injury of
SIRVA and that the preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that the injury was
causally related to the flu vaccination she received on September 11, 2013.” Id. at 3-4.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to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 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.
2National 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 (2006).
Furthermore, respondent agrees that petitioner’s injury lasted for more than six months
and is not due to factors unrelated to the administration of the flu vaccine. Id. at 4.
In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that
petitioner is entitled to compensation.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master
2