# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-1320V (not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RANDY BLAIR DAVIS, * * Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: July 28, 2017 * v. * * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * In fluenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Post-Vaccine Syndrome with Demyelinating * Features. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nancy R. Meyers , Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.

Claudia B. Gangi , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On October 11, 2016, Randy Blair Davis filed a petition seek ing compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensa tion Program (“Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered from a post-vaccine syndro me with demyelinating features as a result of his October 28, 2014, influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petitioner further al leges that he has experienced the residual

effects of this condition for more than six months.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S. C. § 3501 (2012). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet . As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(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 fo urteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secr et or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or simila r files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision in its present form will be available. Id.

2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Chil dhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as am ended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).2 Respondent denies that the flu vaccine cause d Petitioner’s post-vac cine syndrome with demyelinating features or any other injuries. N onetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on July 27, 2017) 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 re view, I conclude that th e parties’ stipulation (as attached hereto) is reasonabl e. I therefore adopt it as my d ecision in awarding damages on the

terms set forth therein.

The stipulation awards:

 A lump sum of $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.

Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensa tion for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Act.

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 A ppendix 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 en try of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.