United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Abeyta v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 2, 2019 · Mindy Michaels Roth

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-477V Filed: December 7, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * RUBEN ABEYTA, * UNPUBLISHED

* Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

* Transverse Myelitis (“TM”); v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine

* SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald C. Homer, Esq., Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Alexis B. Babcock, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master:

On April 4, 2017, Ruben Abeyta [“Mr. Abeyta or “petitioner”] filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that he developed Transverse Myelitis (“TM”) after receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 28, 2014. Stipulation, filed Dec. 7, 2018, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that any of the aforementioned immunizations caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On December 7, 2018, 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 $215,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Ruben Abeyta. 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1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request 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). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id. 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.