United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Sharifipour v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 31, 2017 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-669V

************************* BAHMAN SHARIFIPOUR and ANDREW * Special Master Corcoran SHARIFIPOUR, legal guardians of * BEVERLY SHARIFIPOUR, *

* Petitioners, * Filed: December 1, 2016

* v. *

* Decision by Stipulation; Damages; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Tetanus AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Diphtheria Acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”);

* Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis

Respondent. * (“ADEM”).

* ************************* Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, Boston, MA, for Petitioners.

Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On June 29, 2015, Bahman and Andrew Sharifipour, as the legal guardians of Beverly Sharifipour, filed a petition on her behalf seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioners allege that Ms. Sharifipour suffered from Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) as a result of her October 31, 2012, receipt of the influenza (“flu”) and tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccines. Moreover, Petitioners allege that Ms. Sharifipour experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months.

Respondent denies that Ms. Sharifipour’s flu or Tdap vaccinations caused her alleged ADEM, or any other injury or condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above- stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on December 1, 2016) that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioners compensation.

I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein.

The stipulation awards:  A lump sum of $413,422.63 in the form of a check payable to Petitioners as legal guardians of the Estate of Beverly Sharifipour for the benefit of Beverly Sharifipour, representing compensation for first year life care expenses ($133,422.63), pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses ($280,000.00); and

 An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in Stipulation ¶ 10, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased (the “Life Insurance Company”).

Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Act.

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will 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 (2012). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix). 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review.

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