Pennington v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2017 )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1337V
Filed: May 26, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
****************************
RENEE LYNN PENNINGTON, *
*
Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v. * Influenza (“Flu”); Hepatitis B;
* Guillain Barre Syndrome (“GBS”);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
****************************
Erik Klinkenborg, Klinkenborg Law, LLC, North Kansas City, MO, for petitioner.
Adriana Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On November 6, 2015, 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 she suffered from Guillain Barre Syndrome
(“GBS”) following an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on September 29, 2014 and a Hepatitis
B vaccination on November 5, 2014. Petition at 1-2; Stipulation, filed May 24, 2017, at
¶ 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccinations were administered within the United
States, that petitioner experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six
months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for
damages as a result of her condition. Petition at 1-2; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5.
“Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged GBS and its residual effects were
caused0in-fact by the flu or Hepatitis B vaccines. Respondent further denies that the
vaccines caused petitioner any other injury or her current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1
Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with
the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). 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, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned 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 May 24, 2017, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned
finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding
damages, on the terms set forth therein.
The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
A lump sum of $125,000.00 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 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id.
The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
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/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief 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.
2