United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Mertz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided March 13, 2015 · Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-114V Filed: February 19, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED CAROLYN MERTZ, *

* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman Petitioner, *

* Joint Stipulation on Damages; v. * Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular

* Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Optic SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Neuritis. AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop, Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner. Ryan D. Pyles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

DECISION1

On February 7, 2014, Carolyn Mertz (“Petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from optic neuritis as a result of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine administered to her on February 8, 2011.

On February 18, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation.

Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused Petitioner’s optic neuritis and/or any other injury. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation: A lump sum of $65,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

Stipulation ¶ 8.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman Special Master

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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 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). 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, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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