VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00866
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00866
Petitioner: Michael Zippelli
Filed: 2015-08-12
Decided: 2017-05-09
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2014-02-03
Condition: neurological injuries
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 130000

AI-assisted case summary:
Michael Zippelli filed a petition for compensation on August 12, 2015, alleging that he suffered neurological injuries as a result of a Tdap vaccine administered on or about February 3, 2014. He further alleged that his symptoms persisted for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Petitioner's neurological injuries. Despite this denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation for damages on April 14, 2017. Special Master Herbrina Sanders adopted the stipulation as the decision of the Court. Petitioner was awarded $130,000.00 as a lump sum for all damages, and an additional amount to purchase an annuity contract. Both parties waived their right to seek review of the decision. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Clifford J. Shoemaker represented the Petitioner, and Gordon E. Shemin represented the Respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Michael Zippelli alleged that a Tdap vaccine administered on or about February 3, 2014, caused neurological injuries that persisted for more than six months. The Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a joint stipulation for damages, which Special Master Herbrina Sanders adopted on May 9, 2017. Petitioner was awarded a lump sum of $130,000.00 and an amount for an annuity. The specific theory of causation, medical experts, and detailed factual basis for the alleged injury are not described in the public decision, as the case was resolved via stipulation. Petitioner was represented by Clifford J. Shoemaker, and Respondent by Gordon E. Shemin.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00866-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-05-09
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/14/2017) regarding 38 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (jk) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00866-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/09/17 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-866V
Filed: April 14, 2017
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Special Master Sanders
MICHAEL ZIPPELLI, *
* Joint Stipulation on Damages; Tetanus-
* Diphtheria-Acellular-Pertussis (“Tdap”)
Petitioner, * Vaccine; Neurological Injuries; Annuity.
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Clifford J. Shoemaker, Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein, Vienna, VA, for Petitioner.
Gordon E. Shemin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On August 12, 2015, Michael Zippelli (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34
(2012). Petitioner alleged that as a result of the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”)
vaccine administered on or about February 3, 2014, he suffered from neurological injuries. See
Stipulation for Award at ¶¶ 1-4, filed April 14, 2017. Petitioner further alleged that he experienced
symptoms of this injury for more than six months. Id. at ¶ 4.
1 This decision shall be posted 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), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information that
satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a
motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the
undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such
material will be deleted from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42
U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act,” “the Act,” or “the Program”). Hereafter,
individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
1

Case 1:15-vv-00866-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/09/17 Page 2 of 8
On April 14, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should
be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused
Petitioner’s neurological injuries or any other injury. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint
stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. The 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. A lump sum of $130,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner,
representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(a), except as set forth in ¶ b below; and
b. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of
the attached stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity
will be purchased (the “Life Insurance Company”).
Id. at ¶ 8.
The undersigned approves the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation.
Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of
notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:15-vv-00866-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/09/17 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:15-vv-00866-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/09/17 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:15-vv-00866-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/09/17 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:15-vv-00866-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/09/17 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:15-vv-00866-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/09/17 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:15-vv-00866-UNJ Document 46 Filed 05/09/17 Page 8 of 8