In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1795V
Filed: December 3, 2018
UNPUBLISHED
STEVEN WIDNER,
Petitioner, Special Processing Unit (SPU);
v. Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On November 15, 2017, 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”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October
11, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the
Office of Special Masters.
1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. 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, the undersigned
agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from
public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this
case, undersigned is 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).
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 (2012).
On November 30, 2018, 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 “reviewed the petition and medical records
filed in this case and concluded that petitioner’s claim meets the Table criteria for
SIRVA.” Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that no other cause for petitioner’s injury
was identified, that he suffered sequela of his injury for more than six months, and that
he has met the statutory requirements for entitlement to compensation under the
Vaccine Act. Id.
In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the
undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master