In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1977V

Filed: January 25, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

MICHAEL MEZZACAPO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Joint Stipulation on Damages; 

Influenza (“Flu”) vaccine; Tetanus, 

diphtheria, acellular pertussis 

(“Tdap”) vaccine; Shoulder Injury 

Related to Vaccine Administration 

(“SIRVA”)

Leah Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Voris E. Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On December 27, 2018, 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 right Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed January 25, 2022, at ¶ 

4. Petitioner further alleges that he has experienced the residual effects of his condition 

for more than six months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil 

action for damages as a result of his condition, and that his vaccines were administered 

in the United States. Petition at 2; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that 

petitioner sustained a Table SIRVA within the Table timeframe, and denies that the 

Tdap vaccine and/or flu vaccine in fact caused his alleged shoulder injury and residual 

effects, or any other injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

Nevertheless, on January 25, 2022, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, 

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

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will 

be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government 

Act of 2002. See 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 the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be 

redacted 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

reasonable and adopt 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, I award the following 

compensation:

A lump sum of $50,532.58 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 § 15(a). Id. 

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/Daniel T. Horner

Daniel T. Horner

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.