United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Mitchell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

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

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

Filed: CORRECTED: October 2, 2019 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EDWARD MITCHELL, * UNPUBLISHED *

Petitioner, * No. 16-749V * v. * Special Master Gowen *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation for Award; Tdap; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * MMR; IPV; Twinrix; Guillain- Respondent. * Barre syndrome (“GBS”); Chronic * Inflammatory Demyelinating * * * * * * * * * * * * * Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”).

Michael A. Firestone, Marvin Firestone, MD, JD and Associates, San Mateo, CA, for petitioner. Lisa A. Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DECISION FOR STIPULATION1

On June 24, 2016, Edward Mitchell (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition. Petitioner received the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”), measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”), the inactivated poliovirus (“IPV”) and the Twinrix (combined hepatitis A and B) vaccines on July 3, 2013. Id. at ¶ 2; Stipulation at ¶ 2 (ECF No. 41). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving the vaccinations he suffered Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”) and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Petition at Preamble; Stipulation at ¶ 4.

On September 24, 2019, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 7. Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged injury was caused by the vaccine. Id. at ¶ 6. Maintaining their respective positions, the parities 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 stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7.

The stipulation awards:

1) A lump sum of $278,593.35, which amount represents compensation for first year life care expenses, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check payable to petitioner; and

2) An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph below, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased (the “Life Insurance Company”).

These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 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 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 opinion contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 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. This means the opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion 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 opinion 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). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. 3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.