United States Court of Federal Claims, 2015

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided November 6, 2015 · Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: October 16, 2015) * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** UNPUBLISHED SHERRY C. JOHNSON, *

* No. 15-431 Petitioner, *

* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman v. *

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

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nancy R. Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner. Christine M. Becer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1 On April 29, 2015, Sherry C. Johnson (“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 on October 8, 2013 caused her to suffer from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).

On October 16, 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal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.