# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 8

- 1977 V

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UNPUBLISHED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 STIPULATION 1

On December 27, 201 8

, p etitioner 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 vaccine s w ere administered

in the United States . Petit ion 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, o n 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) (F ederal 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 o ther information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

I f the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be redacted from public access.

2 National Childhoo d 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 subpara graph 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 term s 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 wo uld 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 judgme nt can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.