United States Court of Federal Claims, 2016

Jarrett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Jarrett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 26, 2016 · Nora Beth Dorsey
Jarrett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-856V Filed: December 4, 2015 UNPUBLISHED **************************** CHARLES JARRETT, * * Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * **************************** Amber Wilson, Maglio, Christopher and Toale, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Lara Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On August 11, 2015, Charles Jarrett (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 [the “Vaccine Act”]. Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain- Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) after receiving the influenza vaccine on February 6, 2014.

Petition, ¶¶ 3, 13; see also Stipulation, filed Dec. 4, 2015, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that he has suffered the effects of his injury for more than six month and that neither he nor anyone else has brought an action or has received compensation for his injuries. Petition, ¶¶ 15, 17-18; see also Stipulation ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that the flu vaccine is the cause of petitioner’s GBS or any other injury or his current condition.” Stipulation, ¶ 6.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2National 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).

Nevertheless, on December 4, 2015, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

The parties stipulated that petitioner shall receive the following compensation: A lump sum of $130,764.62 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

Stipulation, ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id. The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.

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 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

Case 1:15-vv-00856-UNJ Document 17 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 5 Case 1:15-vv-00856-UNJ Document 17 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 5 Case 1:15-vv-00856-UNJ Document 17 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 5 Case 1:15-vv-00856-UNJ Document 17 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 5 Case 1:15-vv-00856-UNJ Document 17 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 5

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.