United States Court of Federal Claims, 2022

Foster v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 4, 2022 · Thomas L. Gowen

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 8, 2022

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Unpublished BENJAMIN NOEL FOSTER, *

Petitioner, * No. 18-904V

v. * Special Master Gowen

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision on Stipulation; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * hepatitis A (“Hep A”);

* Tdap; meningococcal (“MCV4”); * chronic inflammatory * Demyelinating polyneuropathy * (“CIDP”).

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.

Mark K. Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

DECISION ON STIPULATION 1

On June 25, 2018, Benjamin Noel Foster (“petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Program. 2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleges that as a result of the hepatitis A (“Hep A”), tetanus diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”), and the meningococcal (“MCV4”) vaccines received on July 24, 2015, he suffered from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Id. at Preamble.

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.

On March 8, 2022, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 71). Respondent denies that the Hep A, Tdap, or MCV4 vaccines caused petitioner’s CIDP or any other injury or his current condition. Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, maintaining their respective positions, the parties now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation to the petitioner according to the terms of the stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7.

The stipulation provides: a) A lump sum of $250,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a).

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the stipulation and this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

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.