# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-571V (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* TERRI LASTER, on behalf of MARC * LASTER, her deceased husband, *
* Petitioner, * Filed: September 3, 2014
* v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; * Progressi ve Respiratory Distress
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Resulting in Death HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Isaiah Richard Kalinowski , Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA (D.C.), for Petitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On September 5, 2012, on behalf of the Estate of Marc Laster, Pe titioner Terri Laster filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleges that as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”)

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explana tion for my action in this case, I will post thisdecision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decisi on’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b) , each party has 14 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). Otherwis e, the whole decision will be available to the public. ( Id. )

2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Progr am is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. N o. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended,2 vaccine Mr. Laster suffered from an illness invo lving progressive respiratory distress, resulting
in his death.

Respondent denies that Mr. Laster’s alleged in jury and/or any other injuries were caused by his receipt of the flu vaccine. Moreover, Respondent denies that the flu immunization contributed to, or resulted in, Mr. Laster’s death. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulat ion filed September 2, 2014 that the issues before
them can be settled and that a decision shoul d be entered awarding Pe titioner compensation.

I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the 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 $75,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner as legal representative of th e Estate of Marc Laster. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be ava ilable under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

Stipulation ¶ 8.

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

42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10- ' 300aa-34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to
individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa.

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11( a), the parties may expedite en try of judgment by jointly (or separately) filing a not ice renouncing their righ t to seek review.