VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01468
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01468
Petitioner: Susan Ross
Filed: 2016-11-07
Decided: 2023-02-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-11-13
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 148022

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 7, 2016, Susan Ross filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleged that she suffered from transverse myelitis as a result of an influenza vaccination received on November 13, 2013. The respondent denied that the vaccine caused Petitioner's condition. However, both parties agreed to settle the case through a joint stipulation filed on December 16, 2022. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the court. The award includes a lump sum of $148,022.71 payable to Petitioner and an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract. This award is intended to compensate for all damages available under the program. The decision was entered on February 3, 2023. Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer of Conway, Homer, PC, and Respondent was represented by Colleen Clemons Hartley of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Susan Ross alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on November 13, 2013, caused her to suffer from transverse myelitis. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via joint stipulation, agreeing to an award without admitting or denying causation. Special Master Katherine E. Oler adopted the stipulation as her decision. The award consists of a lump sum of $148,022.71 payable to Petitioner and an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused the injury.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01468-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-03
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/19/2022) regarding 118 DECISION of Special Master - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (emh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-1468V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
SUSAN ROSS,
*
* Filed: December 19, 2022
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Transverse
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Myelitis.
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, PC, Boston, MA, for Petitioner
Colleen Clemons Hartley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On November 7, 2016, Susan Ross (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF
No. 1. Petitioner alleges she suffered from transverse myelitis (“TM”) as a result of the influenza
(“flu”) vaccination she received on November 13, 2013. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated December
16, 2022 (ECF No. 117); see also Petition.
Respondent denies “that the vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from TM or any other injury
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted
on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. §
3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As
provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of
certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen
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 in its present form will be available. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter
“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the
pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 2 of 9
or her current condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their
above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed December 16, 2022, 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
is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth
therein.
The stipulation awards:
a. A lump sum of $148,022.71 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner; and
b. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the
stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be
purchased (the “Life Insurance Company”).
Stipulation ¶ 8. This award represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount 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/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice
renouncing their right to seek review.

Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 7 of 9

Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:16-vv-01468-UNJ Document 122 Filed 02/03/23 Page 9 of 9