Court Opinion

ID: 2827738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-08-17 20:04:08.485004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:26.862600
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                  OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                           No. 14-965V
                                       Filed: July 23, 2015
                                           Unpublished

****************************
MATTHEW THORNTON,                       *
                                        *
                   Petitioner,          *    Joint Stipulation on Damages;
                                        *    Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre
                                        *    Syndrome (“GBS”); Special Processing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                     *    Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                     *
                                        *
                   Respondent.          *
                                        *
****************************
Rudolph Massa, Massa Law Group, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for petitioner.
Ryan Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                               DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

        On October 9, 2014, Matthew Thornton 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 alleged that as the result of an Influenza [“Flu”]
vaccination on October 22, 2011, he suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome [“GBS”].
Petition at 7; Stipulation, filed July 22, 2015, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleged that he
experienced the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and has received
no prior award or settlement for this injury. Stipulation, ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that
the flu immunization is the cause of petitioner’s alleged GBS and/or any other 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  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend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 (2012).
       Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. Stipulation, ¶ 7. On
July 22, 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 $50,000.00 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.
                                                     2