Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 16-520 (2018)

Court: United States Court of Federal Claims Number: 16-520 Visitors: 2
Judges: Nora Beth Dorsey
Filed: Feb. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-520V Filed: October 19, 2017 UNPUBLISHED THOMAS SMITH, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint Petitioner, Stipulation on Damages; Influenza v. (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Isaiah Richard Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Jason Cockburn Bougere, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION
More
         In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 16-520V
                                    Filed: October 19, 2017
                                        UNPUBLISHED


    THOMAS SMITH,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
                        Petitioner,                          Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
    v.                                                       (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre
                                                             Syndrome (GBS)
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.


Isaiah Richard Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Jason Cockburn Bougere, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                              DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On April 28, 2016, 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 Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) caused by
his November 24, 2014 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1-2; Stipulation, filed
October 19, 2017, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced residual effects
of his condition for more than six months and that there has been no prior award or
settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of his condition. Petition at 3-4;
Stipulation at ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that the influenza immunization is the cause
of petitioner’s alleged GBS or any other injury or condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

       Nevertheless, on October 19, 2017, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned

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).
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 $280,000.00 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer