VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00043 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00043 Petitioner: Dorothy Smith Filed: 2018-01-08 Decided: 2024-01-29 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2016-01-19 Condition: transverse myelitis Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 90000 AI-assisted case summary: Dorothy Smith filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 8, 2018, alleging that she suffered transverse myelitis as a result of her January 19, 2016, influenza vaccination. She further alleged that she experienced residual effects from the condition for more than six months, that there had been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged transverse myelitis or its residual effects, and denied that the flu vaccine caused petitioner any other injury or her current condition. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on January 29, 2024, agreeing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. Special Master Daniel T. Horner found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, Dorothy Smith was awarded a lump sum of $90,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner, representing compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The decision was entered on January 29, 2024. Petitioner's counsel was Renee Ja Gentry of The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry. Respondent's counsel was Zoe Wade of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests performed, treatments received, or the specific mechanism of causation. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Dorothy Smith alleged that her January 19, 2016, influenza vaccination caused transverse myelitis (TM) and its residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused the alleged TM or any other injury. The parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to an award of compensation. The Special Master adopted the stipulation. The public decision does not specify the theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. The award was a lump sum of $90,000.00. The decision was entered on January 29, 2024, by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. Petitioner's counsel was Renee Ja Gentry, and respondent's counsel was Zoe Wade. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-00043-1 Date issued/filed: 2024-02-26 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 1/29/2024) regarding 92 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (ksb) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:18-vv-00043-UNJ Document 97 Filed 02/26/24 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-0043V Filed: January 29, 2024 DOROTHY SMITH, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Renee Ja Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Zoe Wade, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On January 8, 2018, 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 (“TM”) as a result of her January 19, 2016, influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed January 29, 2024, at ¶¶ 2, 4. Petitioner further alleges that she has experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her condition, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. Petition at 1, 4; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged TM or its residual effects were caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine; and denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner any other injury or petitioner’s current condition.” Stipulation at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, on January 29, 2024, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation 1 Because this document contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the document 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, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material 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 1:18-vv-00043-UNJ Document 97 Filed 02/26/24 Page 2 of 7 reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $90,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of 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 1:18-vv-00043-UNJ Document 97 Filed 02/26/24 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-00043-UNJ Document 97 Filed 02/26/24 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-00043-UNJ Document 97 Filed 02/26/24 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-00043-UNJ Document 97 Filed 02/26/24 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-00043-UNJ Document 97 Filed 02/26/24 Page 7 of 7