VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00828 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00828 Petitioner: Lavada M. Hodd Filed: 2019-06-05 Decided: 2022-01-12 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2017-09-21 Condition: erythema multiforme and a cutaneous drug eruption Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 75000 AI-assisted case summary: Lavada M. Hodd filed a petition on June 5, 2019, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleged that she developed erythema multiforme and a cutaneous drug eruption caused by an influenza vaccine she received on September 21, 2017. The respondent denied that the flu vaccination caused Petitioner's alleged injuries or any ongoing symptoms. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a joint stipulation filed on November 23, 2021. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting its terms as the decision. The stipulation awarded Petitioner a lump sum of $75,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all available damages under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The case proceeded as an off-Table claim. Petitioner was represented by Jason Whitley of Novitzke, Gust, Sempf & Whitley, and Respondent was represented by Debra Begley of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued on January 12, 2022. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Lavada M. Hodd alleged that an influenza vaccine received on September 21, 2017, caused her to develop erythema multiforme and a cutaneous drug eruption. Respondent denied causation. The parties entered into a joint stipulation to settle the case, agreeing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The case was treated as an off-Table claim. Special Master Katherine E. Oler adopted the stipulation, awarding Petitioner $75,000.00 in a lump sum. The public decision does not detail the specific medical experts, clinical findings, onset, symptoms, treatments, or the precise mechanism of causation relied upon by the parties in their stipulation. The attorneys involved were Jason Whitley for Petitioner and Debra Begley for Respondent. The decision date was January 12, 2022. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00828-0 Date issued/filed: 2022-01-12 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/23/2021) regarding 40 DECISION of Special Master - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:19-vv-00828-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 19-828V (not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAVADA M. HODD, * * Filed: November 23, 2021 Petitioner, * * * v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Erythema SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Multiforme (“EM”) HUMAN SERVICES, * * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jason Whitley, Novitzke, Gust, Sempf & Whitley, Amery, WI, for Petitioner Debra Begley, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On June 5, 2019, Lavada Hodd (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges she developed erythema multiforme (“EM”) and a cutaneous drug eruption that was caused in fact by the influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on September 21, 2017. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated November 23, 2021 (ECF No. 39); see also Petition. Respondent denies “that petitioner’s alleged EM, cutaneous drug eruption or any other 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 1:19-vv-00828-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 7 injury, or ongoing symptoms were caused-in-fact by a flu vaccination.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed November 23, 2021 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 lump sum of $75,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. 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 1:19-vv-00828-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:19-vv-00828-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/12/22 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:19-vv-00828-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/12/22 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:19-vv-00828-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/12/22 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:19-vv-00828-UNJ Document 44 Filed 01/12/22 Page 7 of 7