United States Court of Federal Claims, 2017

Shea v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided December 27, 2017 · Mindy Michaels Roth

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS (Filed: December 1, 2017) No. 16-1043V

* * * * * * * * * * * * * LANESIA SHEA, mother and next * friend of A.S., a minor, * UNPUBLISHED

* Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

* Optic Neuritis; Influenza v. * (“Flu”) Vaccine.

* SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Donald Gerstein, Esq., Richard Gage, P.C., Cheyenne, WY, for petitioner.

Claudia Gangi, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master:

On August 23, 2016, Lanesia Shea (“Ms. Shea or “petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 on behalf of her minor child, A.S. Petitioner alleges that A.S. developed optic neuritis after receiving an influenza vaccine on or about September 19, 2014. See Stipulation, filed December 1, 2017, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that the aforementioned immunization caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On December 1, 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 $100,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Lanesia Shea, as guardian/conservator of A.S.’s estate. 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1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in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.