Opinion

Childress v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
Filed
Jul 23, 2024
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Daniel T. Horner
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-1577V

Filed: June 25, 2024

TRAVIS CHILDRESS,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for

respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1

On November 12, 2020, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2

(“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as

a result of his February 13, 2019 tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)

vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed June 25, 2024, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further

alleges that he has experienced the residual effects of his condition for more than six

months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages

as a result of his condition, and that his vaccine was administered in the United States.

Petition at 1, 8; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused

petitioner’s alleged GBS or any other injury, and further denies that his current

disabilities are a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Because this document 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 document 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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa (2012).

Nevertheless, on June 25, 2024, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,

stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation

reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms

set forth therein.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following

compensation:

A lump sum of $325,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.

Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of

damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the

Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Daniel T. Horner

Daniel T. Horner

Special Master

3 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.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.