United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Binkley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided May 22, 2015 · Denise Kathryn Vowell

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-630V

Filed: April 30, 2015

Unpublished

**************************** GERALD BINKLEY, *

* Petitioner, * Stipulation on Damages;

* Tetanus-Diphtheria-acellular Pertussis * (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

Respondent. *

**************************** Mark T. Sadaka, Esq., Mark T. Sadaka, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner. Claudia B. Gangi, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON STIPULATION AWARDING DAMAGES1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On July 21, 2014, Gerald Binkley filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury that was caused-in-fact by his tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis [“Tdap”] vaccination administered on January 11, 2013. Stipulation, filed April 30, 2015, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, has filed no other action for this injury, and has received no prior award or settlement. Stipulation, ¶¶ 4-5. Respondent denies that petitioner’s Tdap vaccine caused petitioner’s shoulder injury, any other injury, or his current disabilities. Stipulation, ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. Stipulation, ¶ 7. On April 30, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to pay petitioner:

A lump sum of $85,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation, ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id. I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 s/Denise K. Vowell Denise K. Vowell Chief Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I will post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with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), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact 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 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.

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