VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00539
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00539
Petitioner: Sharon Spiegelglas
Filed: 2020-04-30
Decided: 2022-06-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-08
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 87500

AI-assisted case summary:
Sharon Spiegelglas filed a petition on April 30, 2020, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered from transverse myelitis (TM) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 8, 2018. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Ms. Spiegelglas's TM or any related condition, and denied that her current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a joint stipulation dated April 4, 2022. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the file and concluded that the parties' stipulation was reasonable, adopting it as her decision. The stipulation awarded Ms. Spiegelglas a lump sum of $87,500.00, payable to her, intended to cover all damages available under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The decision was issued on June 27, 2022. Petitioner counsel was Jeffrey S. Pop of Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates. Respondent counsel was Traci R. Patton of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. The specific mechanism of causation was not detailed in the public decision.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Sharon Spiegelglas alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on October 8, 2018, caused her transverse myelitis (TM). Respondent denied this allegation. The parties reached a settlement via joint stipulation, which was adopted by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. The stipulation awarded Petitioner $87,500.00. The public decision does not specify the theory of causation, the medical mechanism, or name any experts. The decision date was June 27, 2022. Petitioner was represented by Jeffrey S. Pop and Respondent by Traci R. Patton.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00539-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-06-27
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 4/4/2022) regarding 33 DECISION of Special Master - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00539-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-539V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
SHARON SPIEGELGLAS,
*
* Filed: April 4, 2022
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine; Transverse
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Myelitis (“TM”).
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner
Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On April 30, 2020, Sharon Spiegelglas (“Petitioner”), filed a petition seeking compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF
No. 1. Petitioner alleged that she suffered from transverse myelitis (“TM”) as a result of the
influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on October 8, 2018. See Stipulation ¶ 1, 2, dated April 4,
2022 (ECF No. 32); see also Petition.
Respondent denies “that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer 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-00539-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/22 Page 2 of 7
and denies that her current condition is a sequela [o]f a vaccine-related injury.” See Stipulation ¶
6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation
dated April 4, 2022 that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered
awarding Petitioner compensation. ECF No. 32.
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 $87,500.00 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-00539-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/22 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00539-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/22 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00539-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/22 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00539-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/22 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00539-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/27/22 Page 7 of 7