United States Court of Federal Claims, 2024

Hegedus v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided October 22, 2024 · Herbrina Sanders

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: September 24, 2024

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JOSEPH HEGEDUS, * No. 22-522V

Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders

v. *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington DC, for Petitioner. Katherine Carr Esposito, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1

On May 11, 2022, Joseph Hegedus (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018). Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on August 25, 2020, caused him to suffer from Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1.

On September 24, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 7, ECF No. 33. Respondent “denies that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury, including [Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)] and/or CIDP or its residual effects, were caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine; and denies the flu vaccine caused [P]etitioner any other injury or [P]etitioner’s current condition.” Id. ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation. See id. ¶ 7. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation: A lump sum of $110,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.

Id. ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D. Sanders Herbrina D. Sanders Special Master

1 Because this Decision 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 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, 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. 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

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