United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Reed v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided July 30, 2015 · Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: July 9, 2015) * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** UNPUBLISHED NORMAN REED, *

* No. 15-18 Petitioner, *

* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman v. *

* Voluntary dismissal under SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine Rule 21(a). AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Catherine D. Bertram, Williams Bertram PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Lara A. Englund, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On January 7, 2015, Norman Reed (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that a trivalent influenza (“flu”) vaccine, possibly in combination with the Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination, administered on October 5, 2011 caused him to suffer from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).

On July 7, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, stating the parties give notice of Petitioner’s 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 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. s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal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 and 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 § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access.

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