# In **the United States Court of Federal Claims**

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 042 V

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

* Special Master Corcoran

JAMIE EMERSON

, *

*

Petitioner

, * Filed: September 17 , 2019

*

v. *

* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Hepatitis B Vaccine ; Uveitis; Retinal

AND HU MAN SERVICES, * Migraines.

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Ronald Craig Homer

, Conway , Homer, P.C.

, Boston, MA , for Petitioner.

Adriana Ruth Teitel , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D

. C

. , for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On January 15 , 201 5

, J amie Emerson filed a petition seeking compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleges that s he

suffered from uveitis and retinal migrain es a s a result of rece iving the Hepatitis B ( “ Hep B ” )

vaccine on July 19, 2012

. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that s 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 ha s 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 di sclosure 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 1 986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660,

100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa

- 10 through 34 (20 12) (“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 Hep B vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer uveitis or retinal

migraines

. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above

- stated positions, agreed in a

stipulation (filed on Septem ber 17, 2019 ) 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 $ 65 ,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 mad e to

Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCF C Appendix B, the clerk of

the C ourt 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.