Ingrassia v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

• Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
• Decided: February 8, 2018
• Docket: 13-10
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: January 10, 2018

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CHELCIE INGRASSIA, as guardian * UNPUBLISHED ad litem for minor son, J.I., * * No. 13-10V Petitioner, * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Joint Stipulation; Influenza (“Flu”) AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Vaccination; Focal Onset Seizure * Activity. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Neal Fialkow, Neal Fialkow Esq., Pasadena, CA, for petitioner. Alexis Babcock, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On January 4, 2013, Chelcie Ingrassia (“petitioner”), as guardian ad litem for minor son, J.I., filed a petition for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that as a result of J.I. receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 6, 2010, J.I. sustained focal onset seizure activity with residual effects lasting for more than six months.

On January 10, 2018, respondent filed a joint stipulation in which they state that a decision should be entered awarded compensation to petitioner. Joint Stipulation (ECF No. 82). Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused J.I.’s alleged seizure activity, any other injury, or his current condition. Id. at ¶ 6. Maintaining their respective positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012). The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. Before the decision 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 decision will be posted on the court’s website. 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. awarding compensation to petitioner according to the terms of the joint stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A.

The joint stipulation awards:

a) A lump sum of $155,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner as guardian/ conservator of J.I.’s estate. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a); and

b) A lump sum payment of $10,000.00 representing compensation for satisfaction of the State of Oregon Medicaid lien, payable jointly to petitioner and

Care Oregon c/o Subrogation Services 722 Country Club Road Eugene, OR 97401.

I find the stipulation reasonable and I adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

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 jointly or separately filing notice renouncing their right to seek review.