Boerckel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedFebruary 15, 2024
Docket22-1518V
StatusPublished

This text of Boerckel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Boerckel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boerckel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2024).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

************************* KELLI BOERCKEL, * No. 22-1518V * Petitioner, * * Special Master Christian J. Moran v. * * Filed: January 23, 2024 SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * *************************

Amy Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner; Lauren Kells, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1

On January 23, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition for compensation filed by Kelli Boerckel on October 14, 2022. Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccination caused her to suffer from immune thrombocytopenia (“ITP”). Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her alleged injury.

Respondent denies that the vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from ITP.

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in 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), the parties have 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the document posted on the website. Furthermore, to avoid unnecessary disclosure of petitioner’s personal information, the Vinesign form, originally included in the stipulation, has been omitted from the attached stipulation with the issuance of this decision. Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum of $40,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached stipulation. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran Christian J. Moran Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 300aa-15
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)
Purposes
44 U.S.C. § 3501
§ 300a
42 U.S.C. § 300a

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Boerckel v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boerckel-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2024.