United States Court of Federal Claims, 2024

Rodrigues v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided April 2, 2024 · Daniel T. Horner

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-1785V Filed: March 5, 2024

TIMOTHY RODRIGUES, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren, et al., P.C., Memphis, TN, for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On September 1, 2021, 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 “bullous pemphigoid and/or small fiber neuropathy and/or other neurologic and physical impairments and other injuries” as a result of his August 29, 2019 tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination and/or his September 29, 2020 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1, 4- 5; Stipulation, filed March 5, 2024, at ¶¶ 1-2, 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, 5; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the Tdap and/or flu vaccines caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s bullous pemphigoid and/or small fiber neuropathy and residual effects, or any other injury. ” 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 March 5, 2024, 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 $150,000.00 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 § 300aa-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.