United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 15, 2019 · Thomas L. Gowen

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: December 19, 2018

************************* UNPUBLISHED SHERRY SMITH, *

* No. 15-33V Petitioner, *

v. * Special Master Gowen

* SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Joint Stipulation; Influenza (Flu);

* Inflammatory Polyarthritis. Respondent. *

************************* Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA (FL), Sarasota, FL, for petitioner. Sarah Christina Duncan, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON STIPULATION1

On January 12, 2015, Sherry Smith (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Program”).2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that she developed inflammatory polyarthritis as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 12, 2012. Id.

On December 19, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation in which they stated that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 71). Respondent denied that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner to suffer inflammatory polyarthritis 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 $66,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 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”). 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.