Shirley Tapia, on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Ethan Tapia v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2013 )
Menu:
-
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 12-264V (E-Filed: April 18, 2013) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SHIRLEY TAPIA, on behalf of her minor * UNPUBLISHED child, ETHAN TAPIA, * * Petitioner, * Special Master * Hamilton-Fieldman v. * * Influenza Vaccines; Tourette syndrome; SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; HUMAN SERVICES, * Attention Deficit Disorder; Decision; * Stipulation. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Andrew D. Downing, Tulsa, OK, for Petitioner Heather L. Pearlman, Washington, DC, for Respondent DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On April 24, 2012, Petitioner, Shirley Tapia, filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Athe Vaccine Program@), on behalf of her minor child Ethan Tapia (“Ethan”). Petitioner alleged that Ethan suffered Tourette syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder (“OCD”), and attention deficit 1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case, the undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205,
116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at
44 U.S.C. § 3501note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request 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). Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to the public.
Id.1 disorder (“ADD”), as a result of receiving influenza vaccinations.2 Respondent denies that Ethan’s influenza vaccinations caused his Tourette syndrome, OCD, ADD, and/or any other injury. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above stated positions, agreed in a Stipulation, filed April 15, 2013, (“Stipulation”) that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. The stipulation awards: A lump sum of $20,000.00, which amount shall be in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-15(a) to which Petitioner would be entitled. Stipulation ¶ 8(a). An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract(s), subject to the conditions described in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the attached Stipulation, paid to the life insurance company(ies) from which the annuity(ies) will be purchased. Stipulation ¶ 8(b). The parties further stipulated that they had reached the following agreement with respect to attorneys’ fees: A lump sum of $44,302.62, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s law firm, Rhodes, Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, P.L.L.C., for attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner represents that she incurred no out-of-pocket expenses in proceeding on the petition. Stipulation ¶8(c). 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.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34 (West 1991 & Supp. 2002) (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. 2 The above amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. ' 300aa-15(a). Stipulation ¶ 8. The undersigned approves the requested amounts for compensation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties= joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 12-264V
Filed Date: 4/18/2013
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021