Schoonveld v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Schoonveld v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Schoonveld 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 No. 22-0897V
JOHN SCHOONVELD, Chief Special Master Corcoran Petitioner, v. Filed: January 15, 2025
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Bridget Corridon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 12, 2022, John Schoonveld filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner filed an amended petition on January 8, 2024. ECF No. 35. Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) that was caused in fact by the influenza vaccine he received on October 19, 2021. Amended Petition at 1, 23. Petitioner also alleges that he received the flu vaccine within the United States, that he suffered the residual effects of his GBS for more than six months, and that neither he nor any other party has filed a civil action or received compensation for his GBS. Id. at ¶¶
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access . 2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2018). 2, 36-39. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On May 6, 2024, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for his GBS. On January 15, 2025, Respondent filed the attached joint stipulation,3 requesting that I issued a decision awarding the below amounts to Petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as my decision awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation:
a) A lump sum of $250,106.21 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; and
b) A lump sum of $550.88, representing reimbursement for a Medicaid lien for services rendered to petitioner by the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services Reference No.: 91-019-0305166633 P.O. Box 19146 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9146
Petitioner agrees to endorse this check to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under Section 15(a). Id.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master
3 Usually, a proffer is filed by Respondent if the parties have reached an informal agreement regarding the
appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded after an entitlement determination. However, in a minority of cases, the parties may choose to file a joint stipulation instead, representing more of a compromise regarding the compensation to be awarded. 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Schoonveld v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoonveld-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2025.