Ido v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 21-589V ************************* * * FIRAS IDO, * * * Petitioner, * UNPUBLISHED * v. * * * Filed: August 5, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * * Respondent. * * ************************* * Christopher J. Webb, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, Memphis, TN, for Petitioner.

Crystal Fialkowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On January 12, 2021, Firas Ido (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1.

Petitioner alleges he suffered from brachial neuritis/plexopathy as a result of a tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination he received on June 24, 2019, and an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 30, 2022. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated August 5, 2025 (ECF No. 74).

Respondent denies “that petitioner’s alleged brachial neuritis/plexopathy or its residual effects were caused-in-fact or significantly aggravated by the vaccines; and denies that the Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012).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. 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. vaccines caused petitioner any other injury or petitioner’s current condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 6.

Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed August 5, 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: a lump sum of $10,000.00 to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to Petitioner.

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 IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jennifer A. Shah Jennifer A. Shah Special Master

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