United States Court of Federal Claims, 2024

Stuart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided January 2, 2024 · Katherine E. Oler

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-940 (not to be published) ************************* * * PAULETTE STUART, * * * Filed: December 11, 2023 Petitioner, * * v. * * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * * Respondent. * * ************************* * Amber Wilson, Wilson Science Law, Washington, DC, for Petitioner Camille Collett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 On August 4, 2016, Paulette Stuart (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”). 2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges she suffered from an autoimmune sensory ganglionopathy as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on October 25, 2013. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated December 11, 2023 (ECF No. 119); see also Petition.

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action 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 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.

No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

Respondent denies “that petitioner sustained an autoimmune sensory ganglionopathy; denies that the flu vaccine caused her alleged injury or any other injury or condition; and denies that her current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed December 11, 2023, that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.

I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein.

The stipulation awards: a) a lump sum of $283,799.80, which amount represents compensation for first year life care expenses ($3,799.80), and combined lost earnings, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses ($280,000.00), in the form of a check payable to petitioner; b) A lump sum of $14,022.66, representing reimbursement of a Medicaid lien for services rendered to petitioner by the New York City Department of Social Services, in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and: New York City Department of Social Services New York City Human Resources Administration Division of Liens and Recovery P.O. Box 414799 Boston, MA 02241-4799 Case # 980852 Petitioner agrees to endorse this check to the New York City Department of Social Services.

c) 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 (the “Life Insurance Company”).

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

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 3

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing their right to seek review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Katherine E. Oler Katherine E. Oler Special Master

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