United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Harvey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 3, 2019 · Herbrina Sanders

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: December 3, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAURETTA HARVEY, * No. 16-705V

* Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders

* v. *

* SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation for Award; TDaP Vaccine; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Optic Neuritis (“ON”)

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., MA, for Petitioner.

Debra A. Filteau Begley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

DECISION1

On June 16, 2016, Lauretta Harvey (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012). The petition alleged that the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“TDaP”) vaccine Petitioner received on August 1, 2013, caused her to suffer from Optic Neuritis (“ON”). See Stip. at 1, ECF No. 55.

On November 30, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. Id. at 2. Respondent denies that the TDaP vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged ON. Id. at 1. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. 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:

A lump sum of $90,000.00 in the form of a check payable to [P]etitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

Id. at 2.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master

1 This decision shall be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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). 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereafter, 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 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.