In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 14-1074V 

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

 * Special Master Corcoran 

MICHAEL SMITH, *

 *

 * 

 Petitioner, * Filed: September 29, 2016 

 * 

 v. *

 * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine; Chronic 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Urticaria. 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 *

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

 

Samantha P. Travis, Brian & Travis, Kalispell, MT, for Petitioner. 

Lara A. Englund, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On November 4, 2014, Michael Smith filed a petition seeking compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2

 Petitioner alleges that he 

suffers from severe and chronic urticaria as a result of his November 9, 2011, receipt of the 

influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he experienced residual effects of this 

injury for more than six months. 

 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will 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 (2012). 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. Specifically, 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 substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which 

would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will 

be available to the public. Id. 

2

 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). 

Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix). 
2

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Smith to suffer from chronic urticaria 

or any other injury or condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated 

positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on September 27, 2016) that the issues before them could 

be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.

I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation 

(as attached hereto) 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 $75,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. 

Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available 

under Section 15(a) of the Act. 

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested 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/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master 

 

3

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) 

a notice renouncing their right to seek review.