United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Thornton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided August 17, 2015 · Denise Kathryn Vowell

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-965V Filed: July 23, 2015 Unpublished

**************************** MATTHEW THORNTON, *

Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages;

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre * Syndrome (“GBS”); Special Processing

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

Respondent. *

**************************** Rudolph Massa, Massa Law Group, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for petitioner.

Ryan Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On October 9, 2014, Matthew Thornton 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 alleged that as the result of an Influenza [“Flu”] vaccination on October 22, 2011, he suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome [“GBS”]. Petition at 7; Stipulation, filed July 22, 2015, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleged that he experienced the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and has received no prior award or settlement for this injury. Stipulation, ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that the flu immunization is the cause of petitioner’s alleged GBS and/or any other injury.” Stipulation, ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. Stipulation, ¶ 7. On July 22, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to pay petitioner a lump sum of $50,000.00 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance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 (2012). 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.