VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00350
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00350
Petitioner: Kristina Pearson
Filed: 2021-06-16
Decided: 2021-09-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-11
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 190000

AI-assisted case summary:
Kristina Pearson filed a petition on June 16, 2021, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered from transverse myelitis (TM) as a result of the influenza vaccine she received on October 11, 2018. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused her alleged TM or any other injury. However, both parties agreed to settle the case through a joint stipulation filed on June 15, 2021. The Special Master reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the court's decision. The stipulation awarded Kristina Pearson a lump sum of $190,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner, as compensation for all available damages. The Special Master approved this award and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. The decision was signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler on September 2, 2021. Petitioner's counsel was Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr. of Rawls Law Group, and respondent's counsel was Mark K. Hellie of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset, specific symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the specific mechanism of causation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Kristina Pearson alleged that the influenza vaccine administered on October 11, 2018, caused her transverse myelitis (TM). Respondent denied this allegation. The parties reached a settlement via joint stipulation, agreeing to an award of $190,000.00 for all damages. The specific theory of causation, medical experts, or mechanism of injury were not detailed in the public decision, as the case was resolved by stipulation. Special Master Katherine E. Oler approved the stipulation on September 2, 2021. Petitioner was represented by Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr., and Respondent by Mark K. Hellie.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00350-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-09-02
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC RULING (Originally filed: 6/16/2021) regarding 29 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (nvb) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00350-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-350V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
KRISTINA PEARSON,
*
* Filed: June 16, 2021
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Transverse
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Myelitis (“TM”).
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Glen H. Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for Petitioner
Mark K. Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On March 27, 2020, Kristina Pearson (“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 October 11, 2018. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated June 15, 2021
(ECF No. 38); see also Petition.
Respondent denies “that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged 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 1:20-vv-00350-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 8
or her current condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their
above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed June 15, 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 $190,000.00 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 1:20-vv-00350-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:20-vv-00350-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/02/21 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:20-vv-00350-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/02/21 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:20-vv-00350-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/02/21 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:20-vv-00350-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/02/21 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:20-vv-00350-UNJ Document 35 Filed 09/02/21 Page 8 of 8