VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01284
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01284
Petitioner: Bonita Reeves
Filed: 2015-10-29
Decided: 2019-07-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-09-24
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 175593

AI-assisted case summary:
Bonita Reeves filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on October 29, 2015. She alleged that she suffered transverse myelitis, which was either caused or significantly aggravated by her receipt of an influenza vaccine on September 24, 2014. Ms. Reeves further alleged that she experienced residual effects from this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that the vaccine caused or aggravated her alleged transverse myelitis. Despite the denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation for damages on June 25, 2019. Special Master Daniel T. Horner reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, Bonita Reeves was awarded compensation consisting of an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract and a lump sum of $175,593.00, representing all remaining compensation for damages available under the program. The decision directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment in accordance with this decision. Clifford John Shoemaker represented the petitioner, and Ryan Daniel Pyles represented the respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Bonita Reeves alleged that her transverse myelitis was caused or significantly aggravated by the influenza vaccine she received on September 24, 2014, and that she experienced residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for damages, which was adopted by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. The stipulation resulted in an award of $175,593.00 in a lump sum, plus an amount to purchase an annuity contract. The public decision does not detail the specific medical or scientific theories of causation, expert testimony, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused or aggravated the condition. Petitioner's counsel was Clifford John Shoemaker, and respondent's counsel was Ryan Daniel Pyles. The decision was issued on July 22, 2019.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01284-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-07-22
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/25/2019) regarding 57 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (et) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1284V
Filed: June 25, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
BONITA REEVES,
Petitioner,
Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v.
Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Transverse
myelitis
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Clifford John Shoemaker, Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein, for petitioner.
Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On October 29, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered transverse myelitis that either was
caused or significantly aggravated by her September 24, 2014 receipt of the influenza
(“flu”) vaccine. (Pet., pp. 1-2; Stip., filed June 25, 2019, at ¶¶ 1-4.) Petitioner further
alleges that she experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
(Pet., p. 2; Stip. at ¶ 4.) “Respondent denies that the vaccine either caused or
significantly aggravated petitioner’s alleged transverse myelitis and/or any other injury.”
(Stip. at ¶ 6.)
Nevertheless, on June 25, 2019, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms
set forth therein.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will
be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the
Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be
redacted from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 2 of 9
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
a. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract as described in
paragraph 10 of the attached stipulation, paid to the life insurance
company from which the annuity will be purchased; and
b. A lump sum of $175,593.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
(Stip. at ¶ 8.) This amount represents all remaining compensation for
damages that would be available under § 15(a). (Id.)
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the
clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 7 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01284-UNJ Document 60 Filed 07/22/19 Page 9 of 9