VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01469
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01469
Petitioner: T.M.
Filed: 2016-11-07
Decided: 2021-09-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-11-08
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 151156

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 7, 2016, Mohammed K. Alam and Jannatul Ferdoushi, as parents and natural guardians of T.M., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Program. T.M. received an influenza vaccine on November 8, 2013. The petitioners alleged that T.M. suffered from transverse myelitis as a result of this vaccination. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused T.M.'s transverse myelitis or any other injury. However, the parties reached a stipulation to settle the case. The stipulation provided for a total award of $151,156.00. This amount included $131,156.00 for first-year life care expenses ($6,156.00) and pain and suffering ($125,000.00), to be paid to the parents as guardians of T.M.'s estate, contingent upon their appointment as such. Additionally, $20,000.00 was awarded to reimburse a lien for services rendered to T.M., payable jointly to the parents and the Department of Social Services, with petitioners agreeing to endorse this check to the Department of Social Services. The stipulation also included an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract for future damages. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen adopted the stipulation and ordered judgment to be entered, awarding compensation to the petitioners. The decision date was September 16, 2021. Petitioner counsel was Robert J. Krakow. Respondent counsel was Traci R. Patton.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that T.M. suffered from transverse myelitis as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on November 8, 2013. Respondent denied that the vaccine caused the injury. The parties reached a stipulation for settlement, agreeing to an award of $151,156.00, which included $131,156.00 for first-year life care expenses and pain and suffering, $20,000.00 for reimbursement of a lien, and an amount for an annuity contract for future damages. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen adopted the stipulation and ordered judgment on September 16, 2021. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism or expert testimony regarding causation. Petitioner counsel was Robert J. Krakow, and respondent counsel was Traci R. Patton.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01469-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-09-16
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/03/2021) regarding 136 DECISION on Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: August 3, 2021
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
MOHAMMED K. ALAM and JANNATUL *
FERDOUSHI, parents and natural * UNPUBLISHED
guardians of T.M., a minor, *
*
Petitioners, * No. 16-1469V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation for Award; Influenza
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“flu”); Transverse myelitis.
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert J. Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, NY, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION ON STIPULATION1
On November 7, 2016, Mohammed K. Alam and Jannatul Ferdoushi, as parents and
natural guardians of T.M., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Program.2 Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). T.M. received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
November 8, 2013. Id.; Stipulation (ECF No. 135). Petitioners allege that as a result of T.M.
receiving the flu vaccine, she suffered from transverse myelitis. Stipulation at ¶ 4.
On August 3, 2021, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be
entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation. Respondent denies that the flu
vaccine is the cause of T.M.’s transverse myelitis or any other injury. Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless,
1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this opinion contains a
reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the website of the United States Court of
Federal Claims. The court’s website is at http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7. This means the
opinion will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the opinion is posted on the court’s
website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the
decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the opinion will be posted on the
court’s website without any changes. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in 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. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012)
(Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §
300aa.

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 2 of 11
maintaining their respective positions, the parties now agree that the issues between them shall
be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the compensation to the petitioner
according to the terms of the stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7.
The stipulation provides:
1) A lump sum of $131,156.00, which amount represents compensation for the first
year life care expenses ($6,156.00) and pain and suffering ($125,000.00), in the
form of a check payable to petitioners as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate
of TM for the benefit of TM. No payments shall be made until petitioners
provide respondent with documentation establishing that they have been
appointed as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of TM’s estate;
2) A lump sum of $20,000.00, which amount represents reimbursement of a lien for
services rendered on behalf of TM, in the form of a check payable jointly to
petitioners and Department of Social Services, and mailed to:
New York City
Human Resources Administration
Division of Liens and Recovery
P.O. Box 414799
Boston, MA 02241-4799
Case #: 956429
Petitioners agree to endorse this check to the Department of Social Services.
3) 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”).
This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 15(a).
Stipulation at ¶ 8.
I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount
and on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in
accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule
11(a).
2

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 3 of 11

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 4 of 11

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 5 of 11

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 6 of 11

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 7 of 11

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 8 of 11

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 9 of 11

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 10 of 11

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 138 Filed 09/16/21 Page 11 of 11

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01469-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-01-09
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/9/2022) regarding 150 DECISION Granting Entry of Modified Judgment. Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (slw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1I:1n6 -tvhv-e0 1U46n9-iUteNdJ S Dtaocteums eCnt o1u51r t o Ffi leFde 0d1e/0r9a/2l 3C l aPiamges 1 of 5
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: December 9, 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
MOHAMMED K. ALAM and JANNATUL *
FERDOUSHI, parents and natural * UNPUBLISHED
guardians of T.M., a minor, *
*
Petitioners, * No. 16-1469V
*
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Modified Judgment; Damages.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert Joel Krakow, Law Office of Robert J. Krakow, P.C., New York, NY, for petitioner.
Traci R. Patton¸ Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION GRANTING ENTRY OF MODIFIED JUDGMENT1
On November 7, 2016, Mohammed K. Alam and Jannatul Ferdoushi, as parents and
natural guardians of T.M., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Program.2 Petition at Preamble (ECF No. 1). T.M. received an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
November 8, 2013. Id. Petitioners allege that as a result of T.M. receiving the flu vaccine, she
suffered from transverse myelitis. Id.
Following a 15-week order, respondent filed a stipulation for award on August 3, 2021.
Stipulation (ECF No. 135). The Decision on Stipulation (the “Decision”) was issued the same
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 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in 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. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012)
(Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. §
300aa.

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 151 Filed 01/09/23 Page 2 of 5
day, and Judgment (“the Judgment”) was entered on September 3, 2021. (ECF No. 136-137).
The Judgment awarded compensation as follows:
1) A lump sum of $131,156.00, which amount represents compensation for the first year
life care expenses ($6,156.00) and pain and suffering ($125,000.00), in the form of a
check payable to petitioners as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of T.M. for the
benefit of T.M. No payments shall be made until petitioners provide respondent with
documentation establishing that they have been appointed as
guardian(s)/conservator(s) of T.M.’s estate;
2) A lump sum of $20,000.00, which amount represents reimbursement of a lien for
services rendered on behalf of T.M., in the form of a check payable jointly to
petitioners and Department of Social Services and mailed to: New York City; Human
Resources Administration; Division of Liens and Recovery; P.O. Box 414799;
Boston, MA 02241-4799; Case #: 956429. Petitioners agree to endorse this check to
the Department of Social Services; and
3) 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”).
Judgment at 1.
In June 2022, the parties contacted my chambers indicating that there was an issue with
the guardianship and on June 14, 2022, I issued a scheduling order for the parties to resolve the
guardianship issue and file a status report in thirty days. See non-pdf Scheduling Order, June 14,
2022. A status conference was held on September 13, 2022, in which the parties advised the
Court that the costs of establishing and maintaining a guardianship for her pain and suffering
damages for a minor in New York State for the relatively short time before T.M reaches
majority, is particularly onerous. Subsection One of the judgment based on the stipulation,
awarded a lump sum of $131,156.00, which included compensation for the first year life care
expenses ($6,156.00) and pain and suffering ($125,000.00), and required the establishment of a
guardianship for these funds prior to payout. On December 6, 2022, the parties filed a Motion for
Relief from Judgment and Entry of Modified Judgment. Motion (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 148).
In order to reduce costs to the Fund while protecting the interests of the minor, the parties
have requested a limited modification of the original judgment. Mot. at 1-6. The parties request
that I modify Paragraph One the Judgment as follows:
A.The sum of $6,156.00 for first year life care expenses to be paid directly to the
petitioners.
B. The Respondent to purchase an annuity for the sum of $125,000.00 to compensate the
minor for her pain and suffering. The annuity to be held by the designated insurance company
until TM reaches majority on October 3, 2025. At such time the sum of $133,572.70 shall be
paid to TM.
2

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 151 Filed 01/09/23 Page 3 of 5
Mot. at 3.
In all other respects the judgment shall remain as originally entered.
ANALYSIS
Under Vaccine Rule 36, Appendix B, RCFC (the “Vaccine Rules”), a party may seek relief
from judgment pursuant to RCFC 60(a) or 60(b). Here, the circumstances for relief under RCFC
60(a) do not apply.3 RCFC 60(b) delineates five specific circumstances for relief, plus a catch-all
permitting a party to obtain modification of a decision based upon “any other reason that justifies
relief.” RCFC 60(b)(6).
The grounds for relief under RCFC 60(b)(6) require a greater showing of “extraordinary
circumstances” than the other subparts of RCFC 60(b). See Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S.
193, 198, 202 (1950) (finding petitioner did not fulfill the “extraordinary circumstances”
requirement necessary for vacating judgment). The Court of Federal Claims has granted relief
under RCFC 60(b)(6) only where, without such relief, substantial rights of a party would be
violated. See Freeman v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 280, 281 (1996) (finding the
alleged circumstances “warrant the reopening of the case in the interest of justice.”); Coleman v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 06-0710, 2011 WL 6828475, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec.
7, 2011) (finding relief from judgment proper under Rule 60(b)(6) to prevent “harm to
substantial rights of petitioner that would result if the requested relief were not granted.”).
As a remedial provision, Rule 60(b) is to be “liberally construed for the purpose of doing
substantial justice.” Patton v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 25 F.3d 1021, 1030 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Special masters have discretion regarding whether to grant relief under Rule 60(b), and to
weigh equitable factors in the exercise of that discretion. See McCray v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., No. 11-567V, 2014 WL 2858593, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 29, 2014) (citing CNA
Corp. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 1, 7 (2008)).
Motions for relief from judgment under RCFC 60(b)(6) have been deemed appropriate
under a number of circumstances. See Mojica v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 102 Fed. Cl. 96,
101–02 (2011) (vacating prior judgment dismissing the claim when petitioner’s petition was lost
by a third-party courier service, and, as a result, the petition was not filed within the statute of
limitations); Coleman, 2011 WL 6828475, at *6 (granting petitioner’s motion for relief from
judgment because failure to review supplemental expert reports filed after the filing deadline
would have unduly prejudiced the petitioner).
3 RCFC 60(a) concerns corrections based on “minor” clerical mistakes, oversights, and omissions. See Patton v.
Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 25 F.3d 1021, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[S]ubdivision (a) covers those omissions or
mistakes resulting from a court’s failure to perform a ministerial duty, as opposed to a deliberative or discretionary
act addressable by subdivision (b).”). The rule states, in relevant part, “[t]he Court may correct a clerical mistake or
a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the
record.” The Court may act on motion or on its own, without notice to the parties involved. RCFC 60(a). This case
does not present such a minor clerical mistake, but rather seeks to modify the Judgment’s mechanism to establish
and maintain a guardianship.
3

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 151 Filed 01/09/23 Page 4 of 5
Here, I find that the parties have established a basis for modification of the September 3,
2021, Judgment under RCFC 60(b)(6). The Motion does not challenge or dispute the underlying
merits of the prior decision, it merely modifies the mechanism to direct respondent to purchase
an annuity rather than issue a $125,000.00 lump sum payment under subsection one. It also
requests that the first year life care plan expense of $6,156.00 be paid to the petitioners. I have
reviewed the motion, spoken with counsel, and agree that the requested modification protects the
interest of the minor and reduces cost to the fund. Such circumstances constitute sufficient
grounds to grant the modification requested under RCFC 60(b)(6), and I find that it is in the best
interest of the minor to do so. In all other respects the original judgment remains as originally
entered and shall remain effective as of the date of original entry.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, I GRANT the parties’ Joint Motion for Relief from Judgment and
Entry of Modified Judgment. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is hereby instructed to amend the
September 3, 2021, Judgment in this matter, substituting the language below for the language in
paragraph one. In all other respects the judgment remains the same:
a.A lump sum of $6,156.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioners for first
year life care expenses; and
b. An annuity contract purchased in the amount of $125,000.00 paid to the Life
Insurance Company as described below, with the payment payable to TM when she
reaches the age of majority on October 3, 2025.
1.The Life Insurance Company must have a minimum of $250,000,000
capital and surplus, exclusive of any mandatory security valuation reserve. The Life
Insurance Company must have one of the following ratings from two of the following
rating organizations:
a. A.M. Best Company: A++, A+, A+g, A+p, A+r, or A+s;
b. Moody’s Investor Service Claims Paying Rating: Aa3, Aa2, Aa1,or
Aaa;
c. Standard and Poor’s Corporation Insurer Claims-Paying Ability
Rating: AA-, AA, AA+, or AAA;
d. Fitch Credit Rating Company, Insurance Company Claims Paying
Ability Rating: AA-, AA, AA+, or AAA.
2.The purchase price of the annuity shall be $125,000.00 paid to the Life
Insurance Company, and will be used to fund a lump sum payment of $133,572.70 on
October 3, 2025, paid to TM. In the event that the cost of the annuity varies from
$125,000.00, the certain lump sum payable on October 3, 2025, shall be adjusted upward
or downward to ensure that the total cost of the annuity shall remain fixed at exactly
4

Case 1:16-vv-01469-UNJ Document 151 Filed 01/09/23 Page 5 of 5
$125,000.00. Should TM predecease payment of the certain lump sum set forth above,
the certain lump sum payment shall be made to her estate. However, written notice to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Life Insurance Company shall be
provided within twenty (20) days of TM’s death.
3.The annuity contract shall be owned solely and exclusively by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services and will be purchased as soon as practicable following the
entry of this judgment. The parties agree that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the United States of America are not responsible for the payment of any
sums other than the amount set forth herein and that they do not guarantee or insure the
future annuity payment. Upon the purchase of the annuity contract, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services and the United States of America are released from any and
all obligations with respect to the future annuity payments.
4.The obligation of the annuity company to make the certain lump sum payment
set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be discharged upon the mailing of a valid check in
the amount of such payment to the address designated by the party to whom the payment
is required to be made. Any payment lost or delayed through no fault of the annuity
company shall be promptly replaced by the annuity company, but the annuity company is
not liable for interest during the interim.
5.The parties stipulate and agree that the certain lump sum payment set forth in
paragraph 2 above cannot be assigned, accelerated, deferred, increased, or decreased by
the parties, that no part of the annuity payment called for herein, nor any assets of the
United States or the annuity company, are subject to execution or any legal process for
any obligation in any manner, and that petitioners shall not have the power or right to
sell, assign, mortgage, encumber, or anticipate said annuity payment, or any part thereof,
by assignment or otherwise.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of
the Court SHALL ENTER JUDMENT in accordance with these terms.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing
their right to seek review.
5