United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Proctor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided November 30, 2017 · Thomas L. Gowen

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: October 27, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * * * * BRADLEY PROCTOR, * UNPUBLISHED

Petitioner, * No. 16-1412V

v. * Special Master Gowen

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Joint Stipulation; Influenza (“flu”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * vaccine; Transverse Myelitis

* (“TM”). Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Diana L. Stadelnikas, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA (FL), Sarasota, FL, for petitioner. Linda S. Renzi, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On October 27, 2016, Bradley Proctor (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that he suffered transverse myelitis as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 15, 2015. Petition at ¶ 6.

On October 27, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Joint Stipulation (ECF No. 28). Respondent denies that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner’s transverse myelitis, her current condition, or any other injury. Id. at ¶ 6. Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner according to the terms of the joint stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A.

The joint stipulation awards a lump sum of $100,000 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Bradley Proctor. Joint Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under Section 300aa-15(a).

I find the stipulation reasonable and I adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3

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

1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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