United States Court of Federal Claims, 2014

Laster v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided September 26, 2014 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 12-571V (Not to be published)

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

* TERRI LASTER, on behalf of MARC * LASTER, her deceased husband, *

* Petitioner, * Filed: September 3, 2014

* v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; * Progressive Respiratory Distress

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Resulting in Death HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* ***************************** Isaiah Richard Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA (D.C.), for Petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On September 5, 2012, on behalf of the Estate of Marc Laster, Petitioner Terri Laster filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine Mr. Laster suffered from an illness involving progressive respiratory distress, resulting in his death.

Respondent denies that Mr. Laster’s alleged injury and/or any other injuries were caused by his receipt of the flu vaccine. Moreover, Respondent denies that the flu immunization contributed to, or resulted in, Mr. Laster’s death. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed September 2, 2014 that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.

I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein.

The stipulation awards:

A lump sum of $75,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner as legal representative of the Estate of Marc Laster. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

Stipulation ¶ 8.

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa.

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will 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)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. (Id.) 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly (or separately) filing a notice renouncing their right to seek review.

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