United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

Strong v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided May 2, 2025 · Jennifer A. Shah

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1878V

************************* *

* DAWN STRONG, *

* UNPUBLISHED

Petitioner, *

* v. *

* * Filed: February 19, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, *

* *

Respondent. *

* ************************* *

Kelly Elizabeth Elder, Martin & Jones, PLLC, Raleigh, NC, for Petitioner Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On December 20, 2022, Dawn Strong (“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 Steven Johnson Syndrome (“SJS”) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (“TEN”) as a result of the Influenza, Hepatitis B, MMR, TD, Tdap/Pertussis, and Varicella vaccinations she received on January 15-16, 2020.3 See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated February 19, 2025 (ECF No. 42); see also Petition.

Respondent denies “that the vaccines caused petitioner to suffer from SJS and TEN or any other injury or her current condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed February 19, 2025, 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:

1. A lump sum of $100,000.00, which amount represents compensation for a portion of petitioner’s first year life care expenses and combined lost earnings, pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner.

2. An amount of $230,000.00 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").

3. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 11 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 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

I approve a Vaccine Program award in the 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.4

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jennifer A. Shah Jennifer A. Shah Special Master

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available. Id. 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. 3 The stipulation notes that Petitioner received a single Tdap vaccine, not “TD” and “Tdap/Pertussis” vaccines, as alleged in the petition. Stipulation at 1. 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing their right to seek review.

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