United States Court of Federal Claims, 2014

McCray v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided June 24, 2014 · Denise Kathryn Vowell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-567V Filed: February 27, 2014 (not to be published)

**************************** SANDRA MCCRAY, *

* Petitioner, * Stipulation; Flu Vaccine v. * Brachial Neuritis;

* Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Complex Regional Pain AND HUMAN SERVICES, * ` Syndrome

* Respondent. *

**************************** Irene McLafferty, Esq., Messa and Associates P.C., Philadelphia, PA for petitioner. Debra Begley, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

Sandra McCray [“petitioner”] filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 on September 6, 2011. Petitioner alleges that she developed brachial neuritis [“BN”], and/or complex regional pain syndrome [“CRPS”], and/or carpal tunnel syndrome [“CTS”], and that these conditions were caused in fact by a flu vaccination. See Stipulation, filed Feb. 27, 2014, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Further, petitioner alleges that she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. Respondent denies that petitioner’s flu vaccine is the cause of her alleged BN, and/or CRPS, and/or CTS, or any other condition. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On February 27, 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 $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Sandra McCray. 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Denise K. Vowell Denise K. Vowell Chief Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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). 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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