Coffey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

• Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
• Decided: June 10, 2019
• Docket: 15-1161
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-1161V Filed: May 16, 2019

* * * * * * * * * * * * * EOIN COFFEY, * UNPUBLISHED * Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation; * Neurologic Disorder; Influenza v. * (“Flu”) Vaccine * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Andrew Downing, Esq., Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner. Lara Englund, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

Roth, Special Master:

On October 9, 2015, James and Christina Coffey filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their son, E.C., who was a minor at the time of filing.2 Eoin Coffey (“petitioner”) has since reached the age of majority and the caption in this matter was amended to reflect this change on April 15, 2019. Order, ECF No. 57. Petitioner alleges that he developed a neurologic disorder after receiving the influenza (“flu”)

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 whole Decision will be available to the public. Id. 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).

1 vaccine on October 10, 2012. Stipulation, filed May 16, 2019, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that the aforementioned immunization caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On May 16, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:

1. A lump sum of $30,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Eoin Coffey; and

2. A lump sum of $5,000.00 in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and James and Christina Coffey.

These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under § 300aa-15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2