Foster v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    Filed: March 8, 2022
    * * * * * * * * *                        *    *   * *                    Unpublished
    BENJAMIN NOEL FOSTER,                               *
    Petitioner,                               *                    No. 18-904V
    *
    v.                                                  *                    Special Master Gowen
    *
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                                 *                    Decision on Stipulation;
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                                 *                    hepatitis A (“Hep A”);
    *                    Tdap; meningococcal (“MCV4”);
    *                    chronic inflammatory
    *                    Demyelinating polyneuropathy
    *                    (“CIDP”).
    Respondent.                       *
    *    *   *   *    * * * *           *    *    *   * *
    Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.
    Mark K. Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
    DECISION ON STIPULATION 1
    On June 25, 2018, Benjamin Noel Foster (“petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation
    under the National Vaccine Injury Program. 2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleges that as a
    result of the hepatitis A (“Hep A”), tetanus diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”), and the
    meningococcal (“MCV4”) vaccines received on July 24, 2015, he suffered from chronic
    inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Id. at Preamble.
    1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 
    44 U.S.C. § 3501
     note (2012), because this opinion contains a
    reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of
    Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the
    opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s
    website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the
    decision.” 
    Id.
     If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the
    court’s website without any changes. 
    Id.
    2
    The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine
    Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 
    100 Stat. 3755
    , codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012)
    (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §
    300aa.
    On March 8, 2022, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be
    entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 71). Respondent denies that
    the Hep A, Tdap, or MCV4 vaccines caused petitioner’s CIDP or any other injury or his current
    condition. Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, maintaining their respective positions, the parties now agree
    that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the
    compensation to the petitioner according to the terms of the stipulation attached hereto as
    Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7.
    The stipulation provides:
    a) A lump sum of $250,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
    These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.
    §300aa-15(a).
    Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with
    the terms of the stipulation and this decision. 3
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    s/Thomas L. Gowen
    Thomas L. Gowen
    Special Master
    3
    Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule
    11(a).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-904

Judges: Thomas L. Gowen

Filed Date: 4/4/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/4/2022