### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11

- 242V

Filed: October 22, 2012

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

DOROTHY MATHEWS, *

*

Petitioner, * Stipulation; Influenza ; Tran sverse Myeliti s;

v. * Attorney Fees and Costs

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

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

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Vow ell , Special Master:

Dorothy Matthews [“p etitioner”] filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 2 on April 18, 2011 . Petitioner alleges

she developed transverse myelitis as a result of a n influenza [“flu”] va ccin e she received

on October 7, 2009, and she further alleges that she experienced residual effects of this

injury for more than six months. See Stipulation, filed October 22, 2012 , at ¶¶ 2, 4.

Respondent denies that petitioner’s flu vaccine is the caus e of her transverse myelitis,

any other injury, or her current condition. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On October 22, 2012

, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describi ng the

settlement terms.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend

to post this decision on the United States Cou rt 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 identif y and

move to delete 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

delete such material from public acce ss.

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 Respondent agrees to pay petitioner:

**•** A lump sum payment of $2 5 0,000.00 in the form of a check payable to

petitioner

, w h i c h r epresents compensation for all damages that would be

available under § 15(a) , except as set forth in paragraph 8.b of the

stipulation ; and

**•** An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in

paragraph 10 of the stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from

which the annuity will be purchased.

The special master adopts the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and

awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein.

Additionally, on September 19, 2012 , the parties filed a joint stipulation of fact

address ing attorney fees and costs. P u r s u a n t t o Ge ne ra l Ord er # 9, t he stipulation

indica tes petitioner incurred no personal litigation costs.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate,

pursuant to §§ 15( b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and

appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the total $ 3 0

, 3 0 9

. 0 1 3 in the form of a

check payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel of record, A n n e T o a l e

, for petitioner’s attorney fees and costs

.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment

in accordance herewith. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

S p ecial Master

3 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all

charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered.

Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from cha rging or collecting fees (including costs) that would

be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y, HHS , 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed.

Cir.1991).

4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the righ t to seek review.

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).