Stephen B. Hales v. HHS - Influenza, polymyalgia rheumatic (2016)

Filed 2014-06-27Decided 2016-11-28Vaccine Influenza
compensated$20,000

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

Stephen B. Hales filed a petition on June 27, 2014, alleging that the influenza vaccine he received on November 6, 2010, caused him to develop polymyalgia rheumatica.

He claimed to have suffered residual effects from this condition for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the vaccine caused the alleged injury.

Despite the denial, the parties reached a joint stipulation to resolve the case. The stipulation stated that Mr.

Hales had not previously received an award or settlement for this condition. The court found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as its decision.

As a result, Mr. Hales was awarded a lump sum payment of $20,000.00 as compensation for all damages.

The clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly, unless a motion for review was filed. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, or any expert testimony.

Petitioner was represented by Douglas L. Burdette, and Respondent was represented by Alexis B.

Babcock. Special Master Christian J.

Moran issued the decision.

Theory of causation

Petitioner Stephen B. Hales alleged that the influenza vaccine received on November 6, 2010, caused polymyalgia rheumatica, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties entered into a joint stipulation, which the Special Master adopted. The stipulation did not detail a specific theory of causation or name any experts. The case was resolved via stipulation, resulting in a $20,000.00 lump sum award for all damages. Special Master Christian J. Moran issued the decision on November 28, 2016. Petitioner's counsel was Douglas L. Burdette, and Respondent's counsel was Alexis B. Babcock. The theory of causation was based on the Vaccine Injury Table, as indicated by the raw data, but the public decision itself does not elaborate on the specific mechanism or evidence presented beyond the stipulation.

Source PDFs 2 total · 1 downloaded