United States Court of Federal Claims, 2025

Pilcher v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Decided July 15, 2025 · Brian H. Corcoran

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 22-1931V

JOSEPH PILCHER, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, Filed: June 13, 2025 v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

Mark Theodore Sadaka, Law Offices of Sadaka Associates, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for Petitioner.

Irene Angelica Firippis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1 On December 30, 2022, Joseph Pilcher 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 injuries to his left arm following an influenza vaccination he received on August 17, 2020. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed at June 12, 2025, ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that he has suffered the residual effects of his vaccine-related injury for more than six months. Petition at ¶ 9; Stipulation at ¶ 4.

“Respondent denies that Petitioner sustained vaccine-induced tendinitis; denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s alleged vaccine-induced tendinitis, or any other injury; and denies that Petitioner’s current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.”

Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, on June 12, 2025, 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 my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

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. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018).

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, 3 I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $11,500.00, to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id. I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

The filed Stipulation included an electronic signature page that has been removed from the attachment to protect the confidential information of the signers.

4 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.