Bratt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •        In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 11-900V
    Filed: February 2, 2016
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *                               UNPUBLISHED
    CATHERINE BRATT,              *
    *                               Special Master Gowen
    Petitioner,         *
    *                               Joint Stipulation on Damages;
    v.                            *                               Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
    *                               Chronic Inflammatory
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH           *                               Demyelinating Polyneuropathy.
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,           *
    *
    Respondent.         *
    *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Mark T. Sadaka, Mark T. Sadaka, LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner.
    Michael P. Milmoe, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
    DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
    On December 27, 2011, Catherine Bratt (“petitioner”) filed a petition pursuant to the
    National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012). Petitioner
    alleged that as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on January 2, 2009, she
    suffered Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, filed
    Feb. 1, 2016.
    On February 1, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision should
    1
    Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case,
    the undersigned intends to post this ruling on the website of the United States Court of Federal
    Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal
    Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 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).
    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. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (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.
    1
    be entered awarding compensation. Respondent denies that the flu vaccination caused petitioner’s
    CIDP or any other injury. 
    Id. at ¶
    6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached
    hereto as Appendix A. The undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the
    decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
    The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
    1) A lump sum of $278,007.71, in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Catherine
    Bratt, which represents compensation for first year life care expenses
    ($58,007.71), and pain and suffering and past unreimburseable expenses
    combined ($220,000.00); and
    2) An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract to provide the benefits
    described in paragraph 10 of the Stipulation, to be paid to a life insurance
    company meeting the criteria described in paragraph 9.
    These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42
    U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). 
    Id. at ¶
    8.
    The undersigned approves the requested amounts for petitioner’s compensation.
    Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.
    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
    Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of
    notice renouncing the right to seek review.
    2
    Case 1:11-vv-00900-UNJ Document 99 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 7
    Case 1:11-vv-00900-UNJ Document 99 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 7
    Case 1:11-vv-00900-UNJ Document 99 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 7
    Case 1:11-vv-00900-UNJ Document 99 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 7
    Case 1:11-vv-00900-UNJ Document 99 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 7
    Case 1:11-vv-00900-UNJ Document 99 Filed 02/01/16 Page 6 of 7
    Case 1:11-vv-00900-UNJ Document 99 Filed 02/01/16 Page 7 of 7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-900

Judges: Thomas L. Gowen

Filed Date: 2/23/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/24/2016