# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1889V (not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CHANDLER NITZKE,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Filed: January 12, 2022

Decision by Stipulation; Damages; Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine; Transverse Myelitis (“TM”).

Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr. , Rawls Law Group, Richm ond, VA., for Petitioner Lara A. Englund , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

On December 13, 2019, Chandler Nitzke (“ Petitioner”) filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Inju ry Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”). 2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that he suffered from transverse myelitis (“TM”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 23, 2018. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated January 10, 2022 (ECF No. 35); see also Petition.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted

on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Ac t of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be availabl e to anyone with access to the internet . As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifica lly, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret
or commercial or financial in substa nce and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would c onstitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decisi on in its present form will be available. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the Nati onal Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent refere nces to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.Respondent denies “that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner to su ffer TM, or any other injury
or his current condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation date d January 10, 2022 that the issues before them
can be settled and that a decision should be en tered awarding Petitioner compensation. ECF No.

35.

I have reviewed the file, and based upon that re view, I conclude that th e parties’ stipulation is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth
therein.

The stipulation awards:

A lump sum of $32,500.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.

Stipulation ¶ 8. This award represents compensati on for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the reque sted amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing their right to seek review.