In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-0910V 

Filed: October 27, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

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

TIMOTHY MIREMONT, * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages; 

v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Guillain- 

 * Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

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

Craig S. Watson, baton, Rouge, LA, for petitioner. 

Ann Donohue Martin, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On August 21, 2015, Timothy Miremont (“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 from 

Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received 

on August 22, 2013. Petition at 1-3; Stipulation, filed October 27, 2016, at ¶ 2, 4. 

Petitioner further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this condition for 

more than six months. Petition at 1-4; Stipulation at ¶ 4. “Respondent denies that 

petitioner’s influenza vaccine caused GBS or any other injury. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 

Nevertheless, on October 27, 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. 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 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). 
2

The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation: 

A lump sum of $225,000.00, 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.