In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-251V
UNPUBLISHED
RHONDA G. SHEPHERD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 28, 2021
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Pneumococcal
Conjugate Vaccine; Shoulder Injury
Respondent. Related to Vaccine Administration
(SIRVA)
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for
petitioner.
Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1
On March 5, 2020, Rhonda Shepherd 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 shoulder injury related to vaccine
administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine administered
on January 18, 2019. Petition at 1. 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Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
On May 27, 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 has concluded that, based on the records filed in this case,
Petitioner suffered a Table SIRVA. Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner
has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under 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
2