Tumas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
This text of Tumas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Tumas 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
************************* RICHARD J. TUMAS, * No. 21-1718V * Petitioner, * * Special Master Christian J. Moran v. * * Filed: November 10, 2025 SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * ************************* Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner; Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION1
On November 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition for compensation filed by petitioner, Richard J. Tumas, on August 18, 2021. Petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine he received on October 1, 2019, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused him to suffer from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) within the time period set forth in the Table, and that his GBS was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine. Additionally, petitioner claims he developed chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) as a result of the flu vaccine, and that the flu vaccine significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition. Petitioner represents 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), the parties have 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Any changes will appear in the document posted on the website. that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on his behalf as a result of his condition.
Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a GBS Table injury; denies that the vaccine caused-in-fact or significantly aggravated petitioner’s alleged GBS, CIDP, or any other injury; and denies that his current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Damages awarded in that stipulation include:
A lump sum payment of $107,500.00, to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner's counsel's IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(a). In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached stipulation.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran Christian J. Moran Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tumas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tumas-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-uscfc-2025.