Court Opinion

ID: 4095029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-02 20:02:38.355125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:11.208500
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 15-0828V
                                   Filed: September 2, 2016
                                        UNPUBLISHED

****************************
BRUCE TUTHILL,                            *
                                          *
                     Petitioner,          *      Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v.                                        *      Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
                                          *      Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH                       *      Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES,                       *
                                          *
                     Respondent.          *
                                          *
****************************
Maximillian Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.
Althea Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                              DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

        On August 3, 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 suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) caused in
fact by the influenza vaccine he received on October 1, 2014. Petition at 1; see also
Stipulation, filed Sept. 1, 2016, at ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that he has
suffered the effects of his injury for more than six months, and that he has not filed a
civil suit or received compensation for his injury alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at
¶¶ 9, 11; see also Stipulation at ¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused
petitioner’s GBS or any other injury or his current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

       Nevertheless, on September 1, 2016, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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

2National 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).
undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court
in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

        The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:

        A lump sum of $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
        Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of
        damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id.

       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