Dobbs v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: December 3, 2025

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KELSEY DOBBS, on behalf of S.S., * a minor child, * * Petitioner, * No. 21-2073V * v. * Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Decision Based on Stipulation; Diphtheria- AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis (“DTap”), * Haemophilus influenzae B (“Hib”), Respondent. * Inactivated Poliovirus (“IPV”), * Pneumococcal conjugate (“PCV”), Hepatitis * B (“Hep B”) Vaccines; Lipodystrophy. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Mctlaw, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner. Felixia Langel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION BASED ON STIPULATION 1

On October 26, 2021, Kelsey Dobbs (“Petitioner”), on behalf of S.S., a minor child, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Act” or “the Program”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2018). 2 Petitioner alleges that S.S. suffered lipodystrophy as the result of, or significantly aggravated by, Pentacel (diphtheria- tetanus-acellular pertussis (“DTaP”)-Haemophilus influenzae B (“Hib”)-inactivated poliovirus

1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned is required to post it 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), 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 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-10 to -34 (2018). All citations in this Ruling to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

1 (“IPV”)), pneumococcal conjugate (“PCV”), and/or hepatitis B (“Hep B”) vaccinations administered on November 25, 2019. Petition at 1, 4 (ECF No. 1).

On December 2, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation recommending an award of compensation to Petitioner. 3 Stipulation (ECF No. 104). Respondent denies that S.S.’s alleged injury or its residual effects were caused-in-fact by the DTaP, Hib, Hep B, IPV, and PCV vaccines; denies that the DTaP, Hib, Hep B, IPV, and PCV vaccines caused any other injury or condition; and denies that S.S.’s current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. 4 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:

(1) An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased (the “Life Insurance Company”); and

(2) A lump sum of $956.51 representing reimbursement of a Medicaid lien for services rendered to Petitioner by the State of Oklahoma, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority:

Oklahoma Health Care Authority Member ID# B32508073 Case# 1053867 4345 N. Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Petitioner agrees to endorse this check to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority.

This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Stipulation at ¶ 8.

3 Respondent initially filed a stipulation on October 22, 2025. Stipulation (ECF No. 93). The undersigned issued a Decision based on Stipulation on October 23, 2025, and judgment entered on October 31, 2025. Decision dated Oct. 23, 2025 (ECF No. 94); Judgment (ECF No. 96). On November 6, 2025, Respondent filed a joint motion for relief from judgment. Mot., filed Nov. 6, 2025 (ECF No. 98). The parties reported that the October 22, 2025 stipulation contained an error and requested that Respondent be permitted to file a corrected stipulation. Id. The undersigned granted Respondent’s motion, vacated the judgment, withdrew the Decision based on Stipulation, and struck the October 22, 2025 stipulation. See Order dated Nov. 7, 2025 (ECF No. 99). On December 2, 2025, Respondent filed the corrected stipulation. Stipulation (ECF No. 104). 4 The Nintex AssureSign e-signature form has been omitted from Appendix A.

2 The undersigned approves the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora B. Dorsey Nora B. Dorsey Special Master

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