# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14 -1074 V

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

* Special Master Corcoran

MICHAEL SMITH, *

*

*

Petitioner, * Filed: September 29 , 2016

*

v. *

* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine; C hronic

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Urticaria.

*

Respondent. *

*

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

Samantha P. Travis

, Brian & Travis, Kalispell, MT , for Petitioner.

Lara A. Englund , U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washingt on, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1



### On November 4, 2014, Michael Smith filed a petition seeking compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”). 2 

### Petitioner alleges that h e

suffers from severe and chronic urticaria as a result of h is November 9, 2011 , receipt of the

influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that 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 has 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 disclosure of which

would cons titute 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 1986, 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 flu vaccine caused Mr . S mith to suffer from chronic urticaria

or any other injury or condition

. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above

- stated

positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on September 27, 2016) that the issues before them could

be settled, and that a d ecision should be entered awarding Petitione r 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 $75 ,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 made to

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

the Court is direc ted 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.