Roman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Roman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Roman 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.
Opinion
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: January 4, 2023
* * * * * * * * * * * * * ALEXANDRA ROMAN, * Unpublished * * Petitioner, * No. 18-1471V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; Influenza; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); * Necrotizing Autoimmune Myositis. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jessica E. Choper, Britcher Leone, L.L.C., Glen Rock, NJ, for petitioner. Christine M. Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION ON STIPULATION1
On September 25, 2018, Alexandra Roman (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 28, 2015, she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) and Necrotizing Autoimmune Myositis (“NAM”). Id.
On January 4, 2023, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 51). Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from GBS or NAM, or any other injury or her current condition. Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, maintaining their respective positions, the parties agree that
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. 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 without any changes. Id. 2 The Na tional 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 (2012) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereinafter, individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act. the issues between shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding petitioner compensation according to the terms of the stipulation attached here to as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7.
The stipulation awards:
a) A lump sum of $257,150.00, which amount represents compensation for the first year life care expenses ($7,150.00) and combined pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses ($250,000.00) in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
b) An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the stipulation.
These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 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 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 Entry of judgment is expediated by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2023.