In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-1933V

UNPUBLISHED

KATHLEEN MAU,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: August 15, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint 

Stipulation on Damages; Tetanus, 

Diphtheria, acellular Pertussis 

(“Tdap”) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(SIRVA)

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Benjamin Patrick Warder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On December 21, 2020, Kathleen Mau 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”), which meets the Table definition for a SIRVA injury after 

receiving a tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on April 12, 2019. 

Petition at 1, ¶¶ 1, 11; Stipulation, filed Aug. 15, 2022, at 1, ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further 

alleges that she received the vaccine in the United States, that she suffered the residual 

effects of her SIRVA more than six months post-vaccination, and that neither she nor any 

other person has filed a civil action or received compensation for her SIRVA. Petition at

¶¶ 1, 8-10; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that [P]etitioner sustained a SIRVA 

Table Injury, denies that [P]etitioner’s alleged shoulder injury was caused-in-fact by the 

1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 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 EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic 

Government Services). This means the Decision 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

Tdap vaccine, and denies that the Tdap vaccine caused [P]etitioner any other injury or 

her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

Nevertheless, on August 15, 2022, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, 

stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation 

reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following 

compensation:

A lump sum of $44,000.00 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 Section 15(a). Id. 

I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of 

a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court is directed to 

enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

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.