United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Watlington v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided September 8, 2017 · Mindy Michaels Roth

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS (Filed: August 11, 2017) No. 14-803V

* * * * * * * * * * * * * THOMAS WATLINGTON, * UNPUBLISHED

* Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

* Acute Disseminated v. * Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”);

* Spinal Cord Inflammation; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Transverse myelitis (“TM”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular

* Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine. Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mark Sadaka, Mark T. Sadaka, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner.

Adriana Teitel, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master:

On September 2, 2014, Thomas Watlington [“Mr. Watlington” or “petitioner”] filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that he developed acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”), spinal cord inflammation, and/or transverse myelitis (“TM”) after receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on October 31, 2011. See Stipulation, filed Aug. 10, 2017, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that the aforementioned immunization caused any of petitioner’s injuries. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On August 10, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms. Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:

A lump sum of $140,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Thomas Watlington. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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 (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision, 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.