United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Michaels v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided August 25, 2015 · Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: August 4, 2015) * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* UNPUBLISHED ALBERT J. MICHAELS, *

* No. 13-182 Petitioner, *

* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman v. *

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

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mark L. Krueger, Krueger & Hernandez, S.C., Baraboo, WI, for Petitioner. Debra A. Begley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1 On March 11, 2013, Albert J. Michaels (“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 an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to him on January 20, 2012 caused him to suffer from a “serum sickness type autoimmune reaction.” Petition (“Pet.”) at 1.

On August 3, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, stating the parties give notice of Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal.

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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal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.