United States Court of Federal Claims, 2014

Brittain v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 24, 2014 · Laura D Millman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-764V Filed: October 3, 2014 Not for Publication ************************************* S.Y., a Minor, by her Mother and Natural * Guardian, MICHELLE BRITTAIN, * * Petitioner, * Voluntary dismissal under * Vaccine Rule 21(a) v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************************* John R. Howie, Jr., Dallas, TX, for petitioner.

Glenn A. MacLeod, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1 On August 22, 2014, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2006), alleging that her daughter, S.Y., suffered epilepsy as a result of the TdaP, Meningitis, Varicella and Gardasil vaccinations she received on August 2, 2011.

On October 3, 2014, petitioner filed Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, stating she gives notice of her voluntary dismissal pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

Accordingly, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21 (a), the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed that a judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

CONCLUSION Proceedings are concluded in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman Laura D. Millman Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall delete such material from public access.

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