Court Opinion

ID: 4348100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-06 21:01:53.034707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:48:56.394486
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                 OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                          No. 17-0758V
                                     Filed: October 4, 2018
                                         UNPUBLISHED

    STEPHEN WALDORF,
                                                             Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
                        Petitioner,                          Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
    v.                                                       (Flu) Vaccine; Brachial Neuritis;
                                                             Parsonage Turner Syndrome
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                       Respondent.

Amber Diane Wilson, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                              DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

       On June 8, 2017, 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 brachial neuritis, or Parsonage Turner
Syndrome, as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on October 23, 2015.
Petition at 1, 3; Stipulation, filed October 4, 2018, at ¶¶ 2-4. Petitioner further alleges
that the vaccine was administered in the United States, that he suffered the residual
effects of his injuries for more than six months, and that he has not brought an action for
or received a prior award or settlement for his vaccine-related injuries. Petition at 1, 4;
Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged brachial neuritis, or
any other injury, was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccination administered on October 23,
2015. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the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).
        Nevertheless, on October 4, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned
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 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 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-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