United States Court of Federal Claims, 2018

Peel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Peel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 10, 2018 · Nora Beth Dorsey
Peel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-0684V Filed: July 13, 2018 UNPUBLISHED

BILLY DEAN PEEL, Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint Petitioner, Stipulation on Damages; Influenza v. (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND (SIRVA) HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Shealene Priscilla Wasserman, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Justine Elizabeth Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 Dorsey, Chief Special Master: On May 23, 2017, 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 left shoulder injuries as a result of an influenza vaccination received on November 6, 2015. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed July 13, 2018, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccination in the United States, his symptoms persisted for more than six months, and he has not previously filed a civil action related to his injury. Petition at 1, 3; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5.

“Respondent denies that the influenza vaccination caused petitioner’s alleged shoulder injury or any other injury or his current condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, on July 13, 2018, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned

Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website,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.

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). finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned awards the following compensation: A lump sum of $90,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

Stipulation 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

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.