United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Liggett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 25, 2017 · Nora Beth Dorsey

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-0526V Filed: December 16, 2016 Unpublished **************************** LEE LIGGETT, * * Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages; v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barré * Syndrome (“GBS”); Special Processing SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Unit (“SPU”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * **************************** Danielle A. Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Althea W. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On May 22, 2015, Lee Liggett (“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”) as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 13, 2012. 3 Pet. at 1; Stip., filed Dec. 16, 2016, at ¶¶ 1, 2, 4. Petitioner further states that the vaccine was administered in the United States, that he experienced the residual effects of his injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of his condition. Pet. at ¶¶ 1, 7, 9, 10; Stip. at ¶¶ 3-5. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s GBS or any other injury or his current condition. Stip. at ¶ 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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. 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.

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).

3 Petitioner also received a Zostavax vaccine, which is not covered under the Vaccine Program.

Nevertheless, on December 16, 2016, 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 stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation: A lump sum of $180,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Lee Liggett. Stip. at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) for injuries allegedly related to petitioner’s receipt of the influenza vaccine. 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. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master

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