In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 17-523V 

 Filed: August 6, 2018 

UNPUBLISHED 

KATHLEEN AMATO, 

 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) 

 

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner. 

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On April 13, 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 she suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of her April 25, 2016 Tetanus Diphtheria acellular 

Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 1; see Stipulation, filed August 3, 2018, at ¶¶ 

2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was administered within the United 

States, that she suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months, and 

that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action on her behalf as a 

result of her injury. Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5; see Petition at ¶¶ 1, 10-11. “Respondent 

denies that petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury and residual effects were caused-in-fact 

by the Tdap vaccine. Respondent further denies that the Tdap vaccine caused 

petitioner any other injury or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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

Nevertheless, on August 3, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, 

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

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 $81,500.00 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 amount 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.