In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 14-1167V
                                   Filed: December 13, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
RENE BRIDGES,                           *
                                        *
                     Petitioner,        *      Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v.                                      *      Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccination;
                                        *      Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                     *      Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                     *
                                        *
                     Respondent.        *
                                        *
****************************
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, & Chin-Caplan, P.C., for petitioner.
Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                              DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On December 4, 2014, 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 she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as
a result of her influenza vaccination on December 12, 2011. Petition at 1; Stipulation,
filed December 9, 2016, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccine was
administered in the United States, that she experienced the residual effects of her
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 her injury. Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5;
Petition at ¶¶ 5-6. “Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged GBS and residual
effects were caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine. Respondent further denies that the flu
vaccine caused petitioner any other injury or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.



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  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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.
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).
       Nevertheless, on December 9, 2016, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. 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 lump sum of $300,000.00 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). 

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