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Unpublished 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, Mankato, MN, for petitioner. 

Claudia Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master: 

 On July 21, 2015, Eric Papenfuss filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 [the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that he suffered brachial neuritis as the 

result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis [“Tdap”] vaccination. Petition at 1; 

Stipulation, filed May 11, 2015, ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced the 

residual effects of his injury for more than six months, has filed no other action for this 

injury, and has received no prior award or settlement. Petition, ¶¶ 11-12; Stipulation, ¶¶ 

4-5. “Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner’s brachial neuritis, or 

any other injury, and denies that his current 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 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 Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government 

Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 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 material 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 Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006). 
2

 Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. Stipulation, ¶ 7. On 

May 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation 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 represents compensation for 

all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id. 

 I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached 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, the clerk of the court is directed 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.