United States Court of Federal Claims, 2019

Stover v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided November 13, 2019 · Daniel T. Horner

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-952V Filed: October 16, 2019 UNPUBLISHED

FRED A. STOVER,

Petitioner, v. Joint Stipulation on Damages;

Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine; Guillain- SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Rudolf L. Massa, Massa Law Group, PC, Pittsburg, PA, for petitioner.

Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On July 14, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his receipt of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 14, 2017. Petition at 8; Stipulation, filed October 16, 2019, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months, and “that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of [his] condition.” Stipulation at ¶¶ 4, 5; Petition at 7. “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a GBS Table injury, and denies that petitioner’s alleged GBS and its residual effects were caused-in-fact by his flu vaccine. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, on October 16, 2019, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation:

A lump sum of $245,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be redacted from public access. 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).

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