Court Opinion

ID: 4264793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-04-17 20:04:18.756409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:42.456429
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 15-199V
                                    Filed: January 31, 2018
                                        UNPUBLISHED

    THOMAS HOLLAND,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
                        Petitioner,                          Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
    v.                                                       (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre
                                                             Syndrome (GBS)
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Sarah Christina Duncan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                              DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On March 2, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffers Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of
his December 27, 2012 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed
January 31, 2018, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that he received his vaccination
in the United States, that he suffered the effects of his injury for more than six months,
and that “there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on
his behalf as a result of his condition.” Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5; Petition at ¶¶ 37-39.
“Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from GBS or any
other injury or his current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

       Nevertheless, on January 31, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned

1
  Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to 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 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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).
finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding
damages, on the terms set forth therein.

     Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned
awards the following compensation:

            a. A lump sum of $454,800.08, which amount represents compensation
               for first year life care expenses ($29,800.08), and combined lost
               earnings, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses
               ($425,000.00), in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and

            b. 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 contract will be purchased (“the Life
               Insurance Company”).

Stipulation at ¶ 8.

       The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                          s/Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Nora Beth Dorsey
                                          Chief Special Master

3
  Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.

                                                      2