United States Court of Federal Claims, 2014

Arthur Charles Hoffman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 9, 2014 · Special Master Vowell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-395V Filed: January 9, 2014 (Not for publication)

**************************** ARTHUR CHARLES HOFFMAN, *

* Petitioner, *

v. * Stipulation; Influenza;

* Brachial Neuritis; Polyneuropathy *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

****************************

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

Arthur Charles Hoffman [“petitioner”] filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 on June 16, 2011. Petitioner alleges that he suffered from brachial neuritis and/or polyneuropathy that was caused-in-fact by the influenza vaccination he received on November 15, 2009, and he further alleges that he experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months. See Stipulation, filed Jan. 9, 2014, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Respondent denies that petitioner’s influenza vaccine is the cause of his alleged brachial neuritis or polyneuropathy. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On January 9, 2014, 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 $295,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Arthur Charles Hoffman. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).

The special master adopts the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Denise K. Vowell Denise K. Vowell Chief Special Master

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

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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 42 U.S.C. § 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. 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 (2006).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.