United States Court of Federal Claims, 2014

Krehnbrink v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 24, 2014 · Thomas L. Gowen

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-0613V Filed: September 24, 2014

(Not to be published) **************************** BRYAN KREHNBRINK *

* Petitioner, * Stipulation; Tdap; Deltoid Bursitis v. *

* SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

**************************** Ronald C. Homer, Esq., Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA for petitioner. Althea W. Davis, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Gowen, Special Master:

Bryan Krehnbrink [petitioner] filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 on August 27, 2013. Petitioner alleges that the Tdap vaccine he received on September 27, 2010, caused his deltoid bursitis3. See Stipulation, filed September 22, 2014, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Further, petitioner alleges that he experienced residual effects of his injury for more than six months. Id. at ¶ 4. Respondent denies that the Tdap or flu vaccine caused petitioner’s bursitis or any other injury or his current disabilities. Id. at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On September 22, 2014, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to pay petitioner:

(a) A lump sum of $100,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Bryan Krehnbrink. 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.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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 Petitioner provides that he also received a trivalent influenza vaccine on September 27, 2010, but has alleged no injury related to the administration of that vaccination. Stipulation at fn 1. 4 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.