United States Court of Federal Claims, 2023

Mills v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided December 18, 2023 · Daniel T. Horner

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 17-457V Filed: November 21, 2023

LANDIS MILLS, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 On March 30, 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 systematic juvenile arthritis (“SJA”) that was caused-in-fact by the tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine, or, in the alternative, significantly aggravated by the vaccine. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed November 21, 2023, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that he has experienced the residual effects of his condition for more than six months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of his condition, and that his vaccine was administered in the United States. Petition at 1, 9; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5.

“Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged SJA or its residual effects were caused-in- fact or significantly aggravated by the Tdap vaccine; and denies that Tdap vaccine caused petitioner any other injury or petitioner’s current condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the document 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, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material 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).

Nevertheless, on November 21, 2023, 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 $60,000.00 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.