United States Court of Federal Claims, 2021

Hine v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided February 16, 2021 · Daniel T. Horner

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1331V

Filed: January 21, 2021 UNPUBLISHED

Special Master Horner SUSAN KAY HINE,

Petitioner, Order Concluding Proceedings; v. Vaccine Rule 21(a) SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Bradley Ryan Hine, Boise, ID, for petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS 1 On August 30, 2018, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that she suffered anaphylaxis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome as a result of her September 21, 2015 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. (ECF No. 1.) This case was originally assigned to then Chief Special Master Dorsey on September 4, 2018. (ECF No. 9.) It was later assigned to my docket on November 6, 2019. (ECF No. 26.) On January 20, 2021, petitioner filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on behalf of the parties pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(B). (ECF No. 51.)2

Accordingly, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a), this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed that a judgment shall not enter in the instant case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner

Daniel T. Horner

Special Master

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 The document was filed as a motion to dismiss rather than a stipulation of dismissal; however, the document itself is a stipulation.

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