Dart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedDecember 11, 2015
Docket15-92
StatusUnpublished

This text of Dart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Dart 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
Dart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (uscfc 2015).

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-92V Filed: November 17, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED LAURIE DART, * * Special Master Gowen Petitioner, * * Joint Stipulation on Damages and v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Transverse Myelitis. AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner. Adriana R. Teitel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On January 30, 2015, Laurie Dart (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 17, 2013, she developed transverse myelitis (“TM”). Stipulation for Award at ¶ 2, 4, docket no. 16, filed Nov. 12, 2015. Further, petitioner alleged that she experienced residual effects of her injury for more than six months. Id. at ¶ 4.

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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). 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.

1 On November 12, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. Respondent denies that the flu vaccination caused petitioner’s TM or any other injury or condition. Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. 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 also stipulate to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in a joint stipulation filed on November 16, 2015. The parties agree to a total award of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $11,500.00. Stipulation for Fees at ¶ 5, docket no. 17, filed Nov. 16, 2015. In accordance with General Order #9, petitioner represents that she did not personally incur costs related to this proceeding. Declaration, docket no. 18, filed Nov. 16, 2015. The undersigned finds the stipulation for fees and costs reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court.

The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:

1) A lump sum of $90,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Laurie Dart. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

2) A lump sum of $11,500.00, in the form of a check jointly payable to petitioner and to petitioner’s attorney, Diana Stadelnikas Sedar of Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300 aa-15(e), for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Id. at ¶ 8.

The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation and attorneys’ fees and costs. Accordingly, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.

2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FED E RA L CLAI MS OFFICE OF SPECIA L M ASTERS

LA U R I E DA RT,

l'clit ium:r,

v. No. I 5-92 \f Spcciul M uster Gowen SECR ETA RY OF HEA LTH A ND ECr: H UM AN SERVICES,

Respondent.

STIPULATION

The parties hereby sl ipu luk lll the following mnllers:

I . Pclil ioncr Laurie Da rt (''petitioner") filed a pclition fo'r \'accinc compensation under

the Nutionnl Vacc ine I njury Com pcnsutio n Prngr:im, 42 U.S.C. § 300u:i-10 lo 34 (t he "Vaccine

Progrnm''). The pclilion seeks eompcnsutiun for injuries nllcgcd ly rclntcd lo pctilioncr's rece i pt

u f' un i n n ucn;w vaccine ("flu"), whid1 vaccine is conlu im:d in !he Vnccinc I njury Table (the

''Tnblc"), 42 C.f-'.R. I00.3 {a).

2. Pet itioner received her n u immun ization on Octobcr 17, 20 1 3. 3. The vnccinc wus adm inistered wi thin lhl! Uni ted Slates.

4. Petilioncr ul lcgcs that sh<: sustn incd a vact:inc-rel:itcd injury diugnoscd as tnmsvcrsc

myel i tis ("TM") thm was cnuscd-in-focl by the n u vacc ine. She f'urlher alleges that she

experienced the n.:siduu l effects of her inj ury for more thun six months

5. Pet itioner represents that there hus been 110 prior uward or settlcm c.:lll or n civi l action

for dnmngc:; :.is a resu lt of" hcr condilinn. 6. Responde11l denies Lhnl pclilinnl!r's a lleged Ttvl nnd res idua l effects were cuust:c.l -i n-

foci by Lhe Ou vacci11e. Rcspo11dc111 further dt:n ics lllUL lht: nu vuct.:ine caused petitioner any

other injury or her cu1-rc11 l cundit io11.

7. Maintaining their nbuvl'-slutcd posit ions, the part ies ncv· rth clcss now agree that the

issues between them shull be sett led uml thnl a decision should be l:nlercd awardi n g the

co111pcnsntion described i n purngrn ph 8 of thi s SLipulu t ion .

8. As soon us pract icublc artcr an entry ol'j11dgmc11t rcllect ing a decision consistent with

the terms of' this Stipu lation , anti al'll!r pc1i1io11cr has filed 1111 ch.:c1io11 to rt:ccive compcnsntiun

pursuam lo 42 U .S.C. § JOOau -21(n)( I ). the Secrclnry ol' Health nnd H umun Services will issue

lhe following vaccine compcnsution puymcnl:

A lump sum of S90,000.UO i n thc form or n check p,1yunlc t o pet itioner. This amount represen ts com pensat ion for:ill damngcs th;ll wou ld be avuilubl l! und er 42 U.S.C. § 300ua- l 5(a).

9. /\s soon as praclicn blc a rtcr tin:entry of judg111c111 on cnt illc:rnent in thi s case, and after

pct i ri oner hns li ll!d both a proper nnc..l t imo.:l y clect iun to receive emnpensa tion pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § JOO:in -2 l (n)( I ), und an appl icatiu11, the parties will subm it lo l'urthcr proceedings bcl'ore

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

Related

§ 300
12 U.S.C. § 300
§ 300aa
42 U.S.C. § 300aa
§ 300aa-1
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1
§ 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)
Dart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dart-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2015.