In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 17-1841V 

 Filed: October 9, 2018 

UNPUBLISHED 

HAROLD A. MOJICATORO, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint 

Stipulation on Damages; Tetanus 

Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) 

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) 

 

Carol. L. Gallagher, Carol L. Gallagher, Esquire, LLC., Linwood, NJ, for petitioner. 

Julia Mater Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On November 28, 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 following the administration of a Tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis 

(“Tdap”) vaccination on November 13, 2016. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed October 4, 

2018, at ¶ 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered in the United 

States, that he suffered a SIRVA as a result of the Tdap vaccine, and that there has 

been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of his alleged 

condition. Petition at 3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the tetanus 

vaccine caused Mr. Mojicatoro’s alleged SIRVA.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

Nevertheless, on October 4, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, 

stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends 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). 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. 

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). 
2

finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding 

damages, on the terms set forth therein. 

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned 

awards the following compensation: 

A lump sum of $72,500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 

Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of 

damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id. 

The undersigned approves the requested amou.nt for petitioner’s compensation. 

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master 

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.