United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Stites v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 24, 2017 · Thomas L. Gowen

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 30, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * NANCY STITES, * UNPUBLISHED OPINION

* Petitioner, * No. 16-118V *

v. * Special Master Gowen

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision on Damages; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Joint Stipulation; Influenza

* (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA for petitioner.

Amy Paula Kokot, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On January 27, 2016, Nancy Stites (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq2 [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on or about September 30, 2013, she developed a shoulder injury with residual effects lasting for more than six months. Stipulation (ECF No. 32), ¶¶ 2, 4.

On March 30, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation recommending an award of compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 32). Respondent denies that the flu vaccine is the cause of petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury and /or any other injury or her current condition. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. 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 stipulate that petitioner shall receive a lump sum of $35,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Ms. Nancy Stites. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Joint Stipulation at ¶ 8.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with the parties’ stipulation.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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 delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will delete such material from public access. 2 National 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). 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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