Spivak v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-0070V
Filed: March 2, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
**************************** JAMIE SPIVAK, the parent and * natural guardian of a minor child, C.C., *
*
Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages; v. * Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (“MMR”)
* Vaccine; Varicella Vaccine; Immune SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Thrombocytopenia Purpura (“ITP”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
*
Respondent. *
*
**************************** Randall G. Knutson, Knutson & Casey Law Firm, Mankato, MN, for petitioner. Althea W. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On January 13, 2016, Jamie Spivak (“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”) on behalf of her minor child, C.C. Petitioner alleges C.C. was diagnosed with immune thrombocytopenia purpura (“ITP”) which was caused-in-fact by the measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”) vaccine C.C. received on February 5, 2013, and the varicella vaccine C.C. received on February 28, 2013. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 4, 11; see also Stipulation, filed Mar. 2, 2017, at ¶¶ 1-2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that C.C. received the vaccines alleged as casual in the United States, that C.C. suffered the residual effects of his ITP for more than six months, and that neither petitioner nor C.C. has received compensation for C.C.’s injury alleged as vaccine caused. Petition at ¶¶ 4, 11-12, 14; see also Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the varicella or MMR vaccine caused C.C.’s immune thrombocytopenia purpura or any other injury or his current disabilities.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on March 2, 2017, 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: An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in the stipulation (id. at ¶ 10) paid to the life insurance company, meeting the requirements set forth in the stipulation (id. at ¶ 9), from which the annuity will be purchased. Id. at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.