VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00133 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00133 Petitioner: Howard Moosman Filed: 2015-01-05 Decided: 2015-04-30 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2011-09-01 Condition: Guillain-Barrè syndrome Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 101707 AI-assisted case summary: Howard Moosman filed a petition on January 5, 2015, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from Guillain-Barrè syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on or about September 1, 2011, and that he experienced the effects of this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that the vaccine caused Mr. Moosman's GBS or any other injury. Despite these positions, both parties agreed to settle the case. On January 5, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for damages, which Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted as his decision. Mr. Moosman was awarded a lump sum of $80,000.00 for all remaining damages. Subsequently, on April 8, 2015, the parties filed another stipulation regarding attorney's fees and costs. Special Master Corcoran approved an award of $21,706.80, payable jointly to Mr. Moosman and his counsel, F. John Caldwell, Jr. The total compensation awarded to Mr. Moosman was $101,707. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation. Petitioner was represented by Franklin J. Caldwell, Jr. of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, and Respondent was represented by Alexis Babcock of the U.S. Dep’t of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Howard Moosman alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on or about September 1, 2011, caused Guillain-Barrè syndrome (GBS). The respondent denied causation. The parties stipulated to settle the case, and Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation. The case was settled "off-Table." The public decision does not detail the specific medical evidence, expert testimony, or the proposed mechanism of causation. The award included a lump sum of $80,000.00 for damages and $21,706.80 for attorney's fees and costs, totaling $101,707.00. Petitioner was represented by F. John Caldwell, Jr., and Respondent by Alexis Babcock. The decision date for damages was February 21, 2013, and for attorney's fees was April 9, 2015. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00133-0 Date issued/filed: 2015-02-02 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/05/2015) regarding 45 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 48 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-133V (Not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HOWARD MOOSMAN, * Filed: January 5, 2015 * Petitioner, * * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; * Guillain-Barrè Syndrome (“GBS”) SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Franklin J. Caldwell, Jr., Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner. Alexis Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On February 21, 2013, Howard Moosman filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on or about September 1, 2011, he suffered from Guillain-Barrè syndrome (“GBS”), and that he experienced the effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that Petitioner’s GBS was caused-in-fact by his flu vaccination, and denies that the vaccine caused any other injury or his current condition. Nonetheless both parties, 1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that 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 decision will be available to the public. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program comprises 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 – 34 (2006)) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to ' 300aa of the Act. Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 48 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 7 while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed January 5, 2015) that the issues before them can be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein. The stipulation awards:  A lump sum of $80,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all remaining damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. ' 300aa-15(a). I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amounts set forth above to be made 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.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2 Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 48 Filed 02/02/15 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 48 Filed 02/02/15 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 48 Filed 02/02/15 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 48 Filed 02/02/15 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 48 Filed 02/02/15 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00133-1 Date issued/filed: 2015-04-30 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/09/2015) regarding 52 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 55 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-133V (Not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HOWARD MOOSMAN, * * Filed: April 9, 2015 Petitioner, * * Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s v. * Fees & Costs * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * F. John Caldwell, Jr., Maglio, Christopher and Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner Alexis Babcock, Washington, DC, for Respondent ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1 On February 21, 2013, Howard Moosman filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Athe Vaccine Program@). On January 5, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation. On April 8, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of $21,706.80, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will 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. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under 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 whole decision will be available to the public. (Id.) Case 1:13-vv-00133-UNJ Document 55 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2 counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in compliance with General Order #9, Petitioner has represented that he did incur any reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition. I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $21,706.80 payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, F. John Caldwell, Jr., Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master 2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their right to seek review.