        In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 15-1358V
                                    Filed: December 6, 2016
                                         UNPUBLISHED

****************************
CARL BECKER,                               *
                                           *
                     Petitioner,           *     Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v.                                         *     Tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis;
                                           *     Tdap; Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                        *     Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                        *
                                           *
                     Respondent.           *
                                           *
****************************
Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                              DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On November 12, 2015, 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 (“SIRVA”) caused-in-fact by his October 14, 2013 tetanus diphtheria
acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed December 5, 2016,
at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced residual effects of his injury for
more than six months and that there has been no prior ward or settlement of a civil
action for damages on his behalf as a result of his condition. Petition at 5; Stipulation at
¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged SIRVA, or any other injury, was
caused-in-fact by his Tdap vaccination ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

       Nevertheless, on December 5, 2016, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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

2National 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).
undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court
in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

        The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:

        A lump sum of $95,000.00 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 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.

                                                      2
