VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00019
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00019
Petitioner: Pamela Stewart
Filed: 2020-01-02
Decided: 2025-04-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-05
Condition: abscess
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 10000

AI-assisted case summary:
Pamela Stewart, a 55-year-old adult, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on January 2, 2020. She alleged that an influenza vaccine received on October 5, 2018, caused adverse effects, including pain, swelling, and an abscess at the injection site. The vaccine was administered by a mobile vaccination entity later found to have inadequate safety controls, which resulted in similar abscess injuries in other individuals. Stewart presented to her primary care provider on January 9, 2019, complaining of tenderness at the vaccination site, which was diagnosed as an acute infection, likely an abscess. She was referred to surgeon Dr. Gregory Strothman, who drained the abscess on January 11, 2019. Cultures revealed mycobacterium fortuitum. On February 24, 2019, approximately four and a half months post-vaccination, infectious disease specialist Dr. Makhawadee Pongruangporn noted that tingling and arm swelling persisted, and recommended further treatment. On April 25, 2019, seven months post-vaccination, Stewart followed up with Dr. Pongruangporn, reporting fatigue and hypersensitivity at the injection site, though the abscess had resolved, leaving a small scar. By July 23, 2019, nine months post-vaccination, her symptoms had largely subsided. The respondent argued that Stewart failed to meet the statutory six-month severity requirement. However, Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran, in a ruling dated March 5, 2025, found that Stewart's persistent fatigue and hypersensitivity, supported by medical records, satisfied the severity requirement. On April 28, 2025, Chief Special Master Corcoran adopted the respondent's proffer, awarding Stewart $10,000.00 in pain and suffering. Petitioner was represented by Timothy R. McCarthy of Nutt Law Office, and respondent was represented by Tyler King of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision notes that the respondent reserves the right to seek review of the entitlement decision.

Theory of causation field:
Pamela Stewart, age 55, received an influenza vaccine on October 5, 2018. She alleged adverse effects including pain, swelling, and an abscess at the injection site. The respondent argued that the statutory six-month severity requirement was not met. Petitioner presented with tenderness on January 9, 2019, diagnosed as an acute infection/abscess. Dr. Strothman drained an abscess on January 11, 2019, with cultures positive for mycobacterium fortuitum. On February 24, 2019 (4.5 months post-vaccination), tingling and swelling persisted. On April 25, 2019 (7 months post-vaccination), Petitioner reported fatigue and hypersensitivity at the injection site, with a small scar remaining. By July 23, 2019 (9 months post-vaccination), symptoms had largely subsided. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran found that the persistent fatigue and hypersensitivity, supported by medical records, satisfied the six-month severity requirement. The respondent's proffer was adopted on April 28, 2025, awarding $10,000.00 for pain and suffering. Petitioner was represented by Timothy R. McCarthy, and respondent by Tyler King. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of causation or name medical experts beyond the treating physicians.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00019-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-03-31
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/05/2025) regarding 37 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (af) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-19V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
PAMELA STEWART, * Filed: March 5, 2025
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Timothy R. McCarthy, Nutt Law Office, Louisville, KY, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On January 2, 2020, Pamela Stewart (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges
that an influenza vaccine she received on October 5, 2018, caused “adverse effects,” including
pain, swelling, and an abscess. See generally Petition. The vaccine she received was administered
by a Kentucky mobile vaccination entity that was later determined to have exercised inadequate
safety control over its vaccines, resulting in numerous vaccinated individuals experiencing
comparable abscess injuries.
Respondent opposes Petitioner's claim, arguing that the Act's “severity” requirement
cannot be met. After a careful review of the entirety of the parties’ submissions, I find that
1 "Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) 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 whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. Id."
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 6
Petitioner has preponderantly established that her injury persisted at least six months post-
vaccination. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D). Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This matter was initiated at the same time as a number of related petitions brought by
similarly-situated claimants.3 Respondent raised an overarching objection to these claims – that
they did not fall within the ambit of the Program because the alleged vaccine-related abscess was
directly attributable to third-party negligence. The parties consented to resolution of entitlement in
one “test case,” the results of which could then be applied to the related cases. On April 25, 2024,
I ruled in favor of the petitioner in the test case, finding that the administration of the influenza
vaccine had caused him to experience a right shoulder skin abscess associated with a bacterial
infection. See Silvers v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 20-1V, 2024 WL 2799285 (Fed. Cl.
Spec. Mstr. Apr. 25, 2024).
On September 17, 2024, I held a telephonic status conference (under the auspices of the
test case matter) to discuss resolution of the remaining cases. I proposed at that time that
Respondent evaluate the related matters and determine if entitlement could be conceded in light of
my ruling, or if facts specific to the remaining cases required different treatment. On October 10,
2024, the parties filed a joint status report in the four remaining cases, announcing that Petitioner
did not intend to file additional evidence relevant to the issue of six-month severity and requesting
deadlines for Rule 4(c) reports. I subsequently ordered the parties to file Rule 4(c) Reports in the
related matters by November 15, 2024.
On November 13, 2024, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report in this action, arguing that
Petitioner was not entitled to compensation because of her failure to satisfy the Act’s six-month
severity requirement. (ECF No. 32). In response, I ordered Petitioner to file a brief showing cause
why the petition should not be dismissed for inability to meet the severity requirement. Order to
Show Cause, dated Nov. 14, 2024 (ECF No. 33). On December 30, 2024, Petitioner filed her
response to the Order. Petitioner’s Brief (ECF No. 34) (“Br.”). On January 30, 2025, Respondent
filed his opposition. Respondent’s Opposition (ECF No. 36) (“Opp.”). The matter is now ripe for
decision.
II. Factual Background
Petitioner was born on July 7, 1963, and was 55 years old at the time of vaccination. Ex.
1. She received the flu vaccine in her left arm on October 5, 2018, and it was administered by the
3 See generally Silvers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (No. 20-1V), Stastny v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services (No. 20-22V), Atkins v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (No. 20-333V), Williams v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services (No. 20-1048V), and Williams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
(No. 20-1120V).
2

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/31/25 Page 3 of 6
same mobile vaccination entity discussed in Silvers. Ex. 3 at 1; Ex. 2. On January 9, 2019,
Petitioner presented to her primary care provider (“PCP”), Dr. Anna Fisher, complaining of a
reaction to the October 2018 vaccination. Ex. 3 at 1. In the history of present illness section of the
record of this visit, Dr. Fisher wrote that Petitioner had experienced tenderness and warmth at the
site after she was vaccinated. Id. As of the January 9th appointment, the site was still “quite
tender.” Id. Dr. Fisher diagnosed Petitioner with an acute infection, likely an abscess, and referred
her to a general surgeon for drainage. Id.
On January 11, 2019, Petitioner had an appointment with the surgeon, Dr. Gregory
Strothman. Ex. 4 at 22. She represented that she developed pain and swelling in her arm two
months after vaccination and explained that these symptoms had progressively worsened. Id. She
described the pain as throbbing and intermittent. Id. Dr. Strothman drained the abscess and took
cultures from the body fluid. Id. at 24. One of the cultures tested positive for mycobacterium
fortuitum. Id. at 27.
On February 24, 2019 (now approximately four and a half months post-vaccination),
Petitioner was examined by infectious disease specialist Dr. Makhawadee Pongruangporn at the
request of her PCP. Ex. 5 at 5. Dr. Pongruangporn noted that Petitioner no longer had an abscess,
but the tingling and arm swelling had persisted. Id. Dr. Pongruanporn determined that Petitioner
likely had a chronic infection and recommended a culture. Id. at 6. He noted that he would start
Petitioner on treatment depending on the results of the culture. Id. Dr. Pongruangporn attempted
to aspirate (drain) the wound twice, without success. Id. He ordered Petitioner to continue
levofloxacin and Bactrim for three months. Id. at 7.
On April 25, 2019 (now seven months post-vaccination), Petitioner had a follow-up with
Dr. Pongruangporn. Ex. 5 at 33. Although Petitioner no longer had an abscess on her arm, Dr.
Pongruangporn did note the presence of a small scar. Id. He also noted that Petitioner was
experiencing “some systemic symptoms with fatigue” and hypersensitivity at the injection site. Id.
Petitioner again followed up with Dr. Pongruangporn on July 23, 2019, nine months post-
vaccination. Id. at 60. By this appointment, Petitioner was feeling “much better.” Id. Her pain had
subsided, and she was no longer fatigued. Id.
III. Parties’ Arguments
Petitioner
Petitioner claims that she experienced residual effects and/or complications for more than
six months after the administration of the vaccine. Br. at 4. In support, she points to Dr.
Pongruangporn’s note from April 25, 2019, which states that Petitioner was experiencing “some
systemic symptoms of fatigue.” Ex. 5 at 33. The notes also state that Petitioner had hypersensitivity
3

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/31/25 Page 4 of 6
at the injection site. Id. Petitioner claims that this proves she was still having active symptoms over
six months after her vaccination. Br. at 4. As the medical records indicate, Petitioner’s symptoms
got better sometime between her April 25 and July 23, 2019 appointments. Id.
Respondent argues that Petitioner cannot meet the six-month severity requirement because
she no longer had an active “abscess” on her arm by the July 2019 visit. Br. at 5. But Petitioner
points out that the Act does not require Petitioner to have an ongoing surgical lesion or abscess in
order to meet the severity requirement. Id. Rather, the requirement simply states that a petitioner
must suffer residual effects and complications beyond the six-month mark, and Petitioner argues
there is “absolutely no doubt” that she was suffering well past six months as evidenced by pain,
hypersensitivity, and a scar at the injection site. Id. at 5-6.
To support this, Petitioner cites Wright v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 22 F.4th 999,
1005 (Fed. Cir. 2022), which states, “[r]esidual suggests something remaining or left behind from
a vaccine injury…An effect that is ‘residual’ or ‘left behind’ is one that never goes away and recurs
after the original illness.” Br. at 6. Petitioner argues that continued fatigue, hypersensitivity, pain,
tinging, swelling, and scarring undoubtedly meet the definition of “suffered” and “complications.”
Id. Accordingly, a simple reading of the notes proves that Petitioner can meet the severity
requirement. Id. at 7.
Respondent
Respondent maintains that Petitioner has not satisfied the statutory “severity” requirement
for her alleged vaccine injury. Opp. at 1. While Petitioner attempts to allege that her injury
persisted for more than six months in her affidavit, this is not corroborated by the medical records.
Id. at 2. Thus, when Petitioner visited Dr. Pongruangporn on April 25, 2019, he noted that she no
longer had an abscess. Ex. 5 at 33. And is not clear from the record that the “small scar” was related
to Petitioner’s flu vaccine. Opp. at 2. Respondent concludes that the medical records
“unequivocally indicate” that Petitioner’s shoulder abscess had resolved approximately four and a
half months post-vaccination. Id. She is, therefore, not entitled to an award of compensation. Id.
at 3.
ANALYSIS
The petitioner carries the burden of establishing the matters required in the petition by a
preponderance of the evidence. Section 13(a)(1)(A). One such requirement is “documentation
demonstrating severity – generally, that the petitioner “suffered the residual effects or
complications of such [vaccine-related] illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than 6
months after the administration of the vaccine.” Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)9; see also Black v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 33 Fed. Cl. 546, 550 (1995) (reasoning that the “potential petitioner”
4

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/31/25 Page 5 of 6
must not only make a prima facie case, but clear a jurisdictional threshold, by “submitting
supporting documentation which reasonably demonstrates that a special master has jurisdiction to
hear the merits of the case”), aff'd, 93 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).
Congress has stated that the severity requirement was designed “to limit the availability of
the compensation system to those individuals who are seriously injured from taking a vaccine.”
H.R. REP. 100-391(I), at 699 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2313–1, 2313–373, cited in
Cloer v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.3d 1322, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132
S.Ct. 1908 (2012); Wright v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 22 F.4th 999, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
In addition, I note the legal standards applicable to proving the various elements of a
Vaccine Act claim. The Act prohibits finding a petition requirement satisfied “based on the claims
of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.” §13(a)(1).
Medical records must be considered, see Section13(b)(1), and are generally afforded substantial
weight. Cucuras v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Murphy
v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-882V, 1991 WL 74931, *4 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. April
25, 1991), quoted with approval in decision denying review, 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991), aff'd per
curiam, 968 F.2d 1226 (Fed.Cir.1992)). However, the Federal Circuit has recently “reject[ed] as
incorrect the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the patient's
physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2021).
It is thus certainly the case that factual matters required to prove elements of a Vaccine Act
claim may be established by a mix of witness statements and record proof, with the special master
required to fully consider and compare the medical records, testimony, and all other “relevant and
reliable evidence contained in the record.” La Londe v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 110 Fed.
Cl. 184 (2013) (citing §12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8), aff'd, 746 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In this case, the medical records objectively preponderate in favor of a finding that
Petitioner’s injury likely persisted for more than six months post-vaccination. Petitioner was
clearly suffering from adverse effects of the abscess at her February 24, 2019 appointment, as
evidenced by her complaints of tingling and swelling and Dr. Pongruangporn’s unsuccessful
attempts to aspirate her wound. Ex. 5 at 5-6. Indeed, Petitioner was ordered to continue her
prescribed medications at this time. Id. at 7. By her April 25, 2019 appointment, which occurred
seven months post-vaccination (and thus after the six-month severity “deadline”), Petitioner was
continuing to suffer from systemic symptoms with fatigue and hypersensitivity at the injection site,
even though the abscess itself had somewhat resolved. Ex. 5 at 33.
Petitioner also has offered her own contentions relevant to this severity finding. See Ex. 2.
As the Vaccine Act makes clear, “a special master or court may not make such a finding based on
5

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 38 Filed 03/31/25 Page 6 of 6
the claims of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by medical records or by medical opinion.”
Section 13(a)(1); see also Lett v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 39 Fed. Cl. 259, 260 (1997)
(“[u]ltimately, the petitioner must substantiate the occurrence of a compensable, vaccine-related
injury with independent evidence”). But these fact contentions are corroborated by the medical
records, which establish Petitioner’s claims of lingering symptoms past the six-month mark. And
Petitioner seems to have fully recovered sometime between her April appointment and her July
appointment – over six months after her October vaccination. All of this evidence allows for a
conclusion that Petitioner’s injury can satisfy the Act’s severity requirement.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I find that Petitioner has provided preponderant evidence sufficient to
meet the severity requirement, and is otherwise entitled to compensation. The parties shall file a
status report on or before April 11, 2025, setting forth their progress in resolving damages in this
case (which, consistent with other comparable abscess cases, should be quite modest).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00019-1
Date issued/filed: 2025-04-28
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/03/2025) regarding 40 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/28/25 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-19V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
PAMELA STEWART, * Filed: April 3, 2025
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Timothy R. McCarthy, Nutt Law Office, Louisville, KY, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 2, 2020, Pamela Stewart (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges
that an influenza vaccine she received on October 5, 2018, caused “adverse effects,” including
pain, swelling, and an abscess. See generally Petition. The vaccine she received was administered
by a Kentucky mobile vaccination entity that was later determined to have exercised inadequate
safety control over its vaccines, resulting in numerous vaccinated individuals experiencing
comparable abscess injuries.
I issued an entitlement decision on March 5, 2025, ruling in Petitioner’s favor. See Ruling
on Entitlement, dated Mar. 5, 2025 (ECF No. 37). On April 2, 2025, Respondent filed a proffer
1 Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (14) 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 whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/28/25 Page 2 of 5
proposing an award of compensation. (ECF No. 39). I have reviewed the file, and based upon that
review I conclude that Respondent’s proffer (as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it
as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein.
The proffer awards:
• A lump sum payment of $10,000.00, representing compensation for pain and suffering,
to be paid through an ACH deposit to Petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt
disbursement to Petitioner, Pamela Stewart.
Proffer at II. This amount represents all elements of compensation to which Petitioner is entitled
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/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/28/25 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
PAMELA STEWART, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 20-19V
v. ) Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On January 2, 2020, Pamela Stewart (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to
34, as amended (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), for injuries and damages alleged to result from an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 5, 2018. Petition at 1. Specifically, petitioner
alleged the flu vaccine caused her to develop a painful abscess on her left shoulder at the
injection site. Petition at 2.
On November 13, 2024, respondent filed his Vaccine Rule 4(c) report arguing that
petitioner’s claim was not covered by the Vaccine Act because petitioner has not set forth
preponderant evidence to satisfy the statutory “severity” requirement. ECF No. 32. On March 5,
2025, the Chief Special Master issued a Ruling on Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled
to vaccine compensation. ECF No. 37.1
1 The parties have no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages. However,
respondent reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(f), to seek review of the Chief
Special Master’s March 5, 2025, Ruling on Entitlement, finding petitioner entitled to an award
under the Vaccine Act. This right accrues following the issuance of the damages decision.

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/28/25 Page 4 of 5
I. Compensation
Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded $10,000.00 in pain and suffering.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). This amount represents all elements of compensation to which
petitioner is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $10,000.00, to be paid
through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to
petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,
YAAKOV M. ROTH
Acting Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
GABRIELLE M. FIELDING
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00019-UNJ Document 41 Filed 04/28/25 Page 5 of 5
/s Tyler C. King________
TYLER C. KING
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-0370
Fax: (202) 616-4310
Email: Tyler.King@usdoj.gov
Date: April 2, 2025
3