VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00568 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00568 Petitioner: Tom Martin Filed: 2014-06-26 Decided: 2014-06-26 Vaccine: Vaccination date: Condition: Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 8523 AI-assisted case summary: Petitioner Tom Martin filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On June 26, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of fact agreeing on an amount for attorneys' fees and costs. Petitioner asserted that he incurred no costs in pursuit of his petition. Respondent did not object to the petitioner's requested amount of $8,522.71 for attorneys' fees and costs. Special Master Laura D. Millman found this amount to be reasonable and awarded $8,522.71. The award was to be paid by check jointly to Tom Martin and his attorneys, Douglas & London, P.C. The decision does not detail the specific vaccine, vaccination date, or the alleged injury or condition, as it solely addresses attorneys' fees and costs based on the stipulation. Michael A. London represented the petitioner, and Jennifer L. Reynaud represented the respondent. Theory of causation field: The public decision does not describe the theory of causation. The case resulted in a decision awarding attorneys' fees and costs based on a stipulation of fact between the petitioner, Tom Martin, and the respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The parties agreed on an amount of $8,522.71 for attorneys' fees and costs, which Special Master Laura D. Millman found to be reasonable. The award was made payable jointly to Tom Martin and his attorneys, Douglas & London, P.C. The specific vaccine, vaccination date, alleged injury, or medical condition were not detailed in the public decision, as the focus was solely on the financial aspects of legal representation. The decision date was June 26, 2014. Attorneys for the petitioner were Michael A. London and Douglas & London, P.C. Attorney for the respondent was Jennifer L. Reynaud. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00568-cl-extra-2642861 Date issued/filed: 2013-10-25 Pages: 1 Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 2642861 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 12-568V Filed: October 25, 2013 Not for Publication ************************************* TOM MARTIN, * * Damages decision based on stipulation; Petitioner, * Guillain-Barré Syndrome; flu vaccine * * v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************************* Michael A. London, New York, NY, for petitioner. Jennifer L. Reynaud, Washington, DC, for respondent. MILLMAN, Special Master DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On October 24, 2013, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) that was caused by his September 30, 2010 receipt of influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of his injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged GBS and residual effects, any other injury, or his current condition. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall delete such material from public access. matter informally. The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby adopts the parties’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of $100,000.00, representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) (2012). The award shall be in the form of a check for $100,000.00 made payable to petitioner. 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.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 25, 2013 s/ Laura D. Millman Laura D. Millman Special Master 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00568-0 Date issued/filed: 2014-07-17 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/26/2014) regarding 36 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Laura D Millman. (tlj) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:12-vv-00568-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/17/14 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 12-568V Filed: June 26, 2014 Not for Publication ************************************* TOM MARTIN, * * Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on * stipulation of fact v. * * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * ************************************* Michael A. London, New York, NY, for petitioner. Jennifer L. Reynaud, Washington, DC, for respondent. MILLMAN, Special Master DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1 On June 26, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner asserts that he did not incur any costs in pursuit of his petition. Petitioner informally submitted his request for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. Respondent does not object to petitioner’s requested amount, $8,522.71. The undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court 1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall redact such material from public access. Case 1:12-vv-00568-UNJ Document 39 Filed 07/17/14 Page 2 of 2 awards $8,522.71, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Douglas & London, P.C. in the amount of $8,522.71. 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.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 26, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman Laura D. Millman Special Master 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2