United States Court of Federal Claims, 2024

Rytel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Rytel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 30, 2024 · Mindy Michaels Roth
Rytel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-263V Filed: April 5, 2024 * * * * * * * * * * * * * JACK RYTEL * * Petitioner, * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald Homer, Esq., Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Kimberly Davey, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 Roth, Special Master: On February 15, 2019, Jenifer Rytel filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 on behalf of her minor son. Pet., ECF No. 1. On October 31, 2022, a motion to amend the case caption was filed to name Jack Rytel (“petitioner”) as the petitioner in this matter, as he had reached the age of majority. ECF No. 84. Petitioner alleges that he developed transverse myelitis (“TM”) after receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on February 7, 2017. Stipulation, filed April 5, 2024, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that the aforementioned immunization caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

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.

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 (2018).

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On April 5, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment: a. A lump sum of $242,643.85, representing compensation for first year life care expenses and pain and suffering, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Jack Rytel; b. A lump sum of $3,839.14, representing reimbursement of an Oregon Department of Human Services lien for services rendered on behalf of petitioner, Jack Rytel, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Oregon Department of Human Services Personal Injury Liens Unit PO Box 14512 Salem, OR 97309-5024 PIL No.: 497405 Attn: Shane Provost c. A lump sum of $110,000.00, representing reimbursement of a CareOregon lien for services rendered on behalf of petitioner, Jack Rytel, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and EXL Health Ryan Court, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 Contract No.: MEMB00000638481 Attn: Sarah Turney d. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased.

These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.

Special Master

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