# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-638V Filed: May 13, 2015 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ERIC PAPENFUSS, *

* Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages; * Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular * Pertussis (“Tdap”); Brachial SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Neuritis; Special Processing Unit AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Randall Knutson, Knutson and Casey Law Firm, Mankat o, MN, for petitioner. Claudia Gangi, U.S. Department of Just ice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON J OINT STIPULATION 1

Vowell , Chief Special Master:

On July 21, 2015, Eric Papenfuss fil ed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensat ion Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Progr am”]. Petitioner alleges that he su ffered brachial neuritis as the result of a tetanus-diphtheria -acellular pertussis [“Tdap”] va ccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed May 11, 2015, ¶ 4. Petitioner further a lleges that he experienced the residual effects of his injury for more than si x months, has filed no other action for this injury, and has received no prior award or sett lement. Petition, ¶¶ 11-12; Stipulation, ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that th e Tdap vaccine caused petitioner’s brachial neuritis, or any other injury, and denies that his curr ent disabilities are sequelae of a vaccinerelated injury.” Stipulation, ¶ 6.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the United States Court of Federal Clai ms' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Sta t. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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, I agree that the identified mate rial fits within this definition, I 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2006).2 Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to se ttle the case. Sti pulation, ¶ 7. On May 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint sti pulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to pay petitioner a lump sum of $65, 000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation, ¶ 8. This amount repr esents compensation for all damages that would be availabl e under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id

.

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attac hed hereto, and award compensation in the

amount and on the terms set forth therein. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, t he clerk of the court is di rected to enter judgment in

accordance with this decision. 3

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.