United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Olund v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided May 15, 2015 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 10-505V Filed: April 21, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED ALICIA OLUND, * Special Master Dorsey

Petitioner, *

* Joint Stipulation on Damages; v. * Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”)

* Vaccine; Guillain-Barré Syndrome SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“GBS”); Chronic Inflammatory AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Demyelinating Polyneuropathy

* (“CIDP”); Autoimmune Respondent. * Polyneuropathy.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol, Schwartz, et al., Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner. Debra Begley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION1

On August 3, 2010, Alicia Olund (“petitioner”)2 filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2006).3 Petitioner received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 15, 2007, the human papillomavirus (“HPV”), tetanus, diphtheria, acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”), and varicella vaccines on November 6, 2007; a second HPV vaccine on January 14, 2008; and a third HPV vaccine on September 19, 2008. Petitioner alleged that she developed Guillain-Barrė syndrome (“GBS”) and/or chronic demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”), and/or an autoimmune polyneuropathy (“AP”) that was/were caused in fact by the Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccines she received. Petitioner furthered alleged that she experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. See Petition at 1, 6.

On April 17, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation in which they agree that a decision should be entered awarding compensation.

Respondent denies that petitioner’s GBS, CIDP, and/or AP, or any other condition, was caused-in-fact by her HPV vaccinations, and/or her Tdap, varicella, and/or her flu vaccinations. 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 stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following compensation: a. A lump sum of $160,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and b. A lump sum of $25,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner and

Barbara and Curt Olund for past unreimbursed medical expenses.

Stipulation ¶ 8. These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a).

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.4

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey 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 The petition was originally filed by Barbara and Curt Olund, petitioner’s parents. On February 12, 2015, Alicia Olund reached the age of majority and the caption of the case was amended on February 18, 2015, to reflect Alicia Olund as the proper petitioner. 4 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.