United States Court of Federal Claims, 2013

Jodi M. Rowe, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Carter Hyde v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Jodi M. Rowe, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Carter Hyde v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 28, 2013 · Special Master Hastings
Jodi M. Rowe, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Carter Hyde v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 11-322V (Not to be published 1) ************************** * JODI M. ROWE, as Personal Representative * of the Estate of PATRICIA CARTER HYDE * * Filed: October 28, 2013 Petitioner, * * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; v. * Influenza Vaccine; Transverse * Myelitis (TM) SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES * * Respondent. * * **************************

DECISION HASTINGS, Special Master.

This is an action seeking an award under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program 2 on account of an injury suffered by Patricia Carter Hyde, which eventually led to her death. On October 25, 2013, counsel for both parties filed a Stipulation, stipulating that a decision should be entered granting compensation. The parties have stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following compensation: Lump Sum Respondent shall make a lump sum payment of $235,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Jodi M. Rowe, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Carter Hyde. This Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.

The applicable statutory provisions defining the Program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006 ed.).

Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all "§" references will be to 42 U.S.C. (2006 ed.). amount represents compensation for all damages that are available under 42 U.S.C. '300aa- 15(a).

Under the statute governing the Program, as well as the “Vaccine Rules” adopted by this court, the special master must now enter a decision endorsing that stipulation, and the clerk must enter judgment, in order to authorize payment of the award. See § 300aa-12(d)(3)(A) and (e)(3); § 300aa-13(a); Vaccine Rules 10(a), 11(a). 3 I have reviewed the file, and based on that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation appears to be an appropriate one. Accordingly, my decision is that a Program award shall be in the form of a lump sum payment, as provided above. In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review of this Decision, the clerk shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr. George L. Hastings, Jr. Special Master

The “Vaccine Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims” are found in Appendix B of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.