United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Holmes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 27, 2017 · Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-349V

Filed: December 29, 2016 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED CANDACE L. HOLMES, * * Special Master Hamtilon-Fieldman Petitioner, * * v. * Joint Stipulation of Dismissal; * Vaccine Rule 21(a); No Judgment; * Order Concluding Proceedings *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * *

Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nancy R. Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.

Claudia Gangi, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On March 17, 2016, Candace L. Holmes (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that the administration of a trivalent influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 14, 2015 caused her to develop pseudotumor cerebri. Pet. at 1-2, ECF No. 1.

On December 23, 2016, Petitioner and Respondent submitted a joint Stipulation of Dismissal. Stip., ECF No. 23. Accordingly, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21 (a) the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed that a judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman Special Master

1 Because this unpublished Order contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 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.

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