United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Sedlacek v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided August 20, 2019 · Herbrina Sanders

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: July 29, 2019 *************************

MILAN SEDLACEK, * No. 17-1226V *

Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders v. * *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation for Award; Influenza (“flu”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Vaccine; Chronic Inflammatory * Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) Respondent. * *************************

Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer, PC, Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Daniel A. Principato, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1

On September 11, 2017, Milan Sedlacek (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 8, 2014 caused him to develop Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). See Stip. at 1, ECF No. 42. Petitioner further alleged that he experienced the residual effects of his injury for more than six months. Id.

On July 26, 2019, 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 flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged CIDP, or any other injury. Id. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt 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 $230,000.00 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.

I approve 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)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. 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. 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.