Myers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Myers
Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided
June 16, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Importance
46%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: April 18, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * LESA MYERS, * * Petitioner, * No. 18-324V * v. * Special Master Gowen * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lawrence R. Cohan, Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner. Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. DECISION ON STIPULATION1 On March 1, 2018, Lesa Myers (“petitioner”) filed her claim for compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on October 27, 2016, she suffered chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Id. at Preamble. On April 17, 2025, respondent filed a stipulation providing that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 77). Respondent denies that the flu vaccine petitioner caused her to suffer CIDP, any other injury or her current condition. Id. at ¶ 6. Nevertheless, maintaining their respective positions, the parties now agree that the issues between them settled and that a decision should be entered awarding petitioner compensation in accordance with the stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A. Id. at ¶ 7. 1 Pursuant to the E-Government Act of 2002, see 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012), because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it to a publicly available website. This decision will appear at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc or on the Court of Federal Claims website. This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the Internet. Before the decision is posted on the court’s website, each party has 14 days to file a motion requesting 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). “An objecting party must provide the court with a proposed redacted version of the decision.” Id. If neither party files a motion for redaction within 14 days, the decision will be posted on the court’s website without any changes. Id. 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (Vaccine Act or the Act). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa. The stipulation provides: 1) A lump sum of $83,828.19, which amount represents compensation for the first year life care expenses ($8,828.19) and combined pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses ($75,000.00), to be paid through an ACH deposit to petitioner’s counsel’s IOLTA account for prompt disbursement to petitioner; 2) An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased. These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Thomas L. Gowen Thomas L. Gowen Special Master 3 Entry of judgment is expedited by each party’s filing notice renouncing the right to seek review. Vaccine Rule 11(a). 2
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 16, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Myers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services is a significant case decided by the United States Court of Federal Claims on June 16, 2025. The case revolves around a claim filed by Lesa Myers under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), alleging injury from the influenza vaccine.
Key Legal Issues
- Vaccine Injury Compensation: The case examines the process and stipulations involved in claims for vaccine-related injuries.
- Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP): The petitioner claims that the flu vaccine caused her to develop this serious neurological condition.
Court's Decision
On April 17, 2025, the respondent, represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, filed a stipulation agreeing to award compensation to the petitioner, despite denying causation. The court adopted the stipulation and awarded compensation as follows:
- A lump sum of $83,828.19 for:
- First-year life care expenses: $8,828.19
- Combined pain and suffering and past unreimbursable expenses: $75,000.00
- An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract as described in the stipulation.
Legal Reasoning
The court's decision is based on the stipulation between the parties, which reflects a settlement of the issues without admitting liability. The stipulation indicates that:
- The respondent does not concede that the flu vaccine caused the petitioner’s CIDP or any other injury.
- Both parties agreed to resolve the matter amicably, allowing for compensation under the terms specified.
Key Holdings
- The court awarded $83,828.19 to Lesa Myers for her claims under the Vaccine Act.
- The decision emphasizes the importance of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in providing relief to individuals claiming vaccine-related injuries.
Precedents and Citations
- National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986: This act establishes the framework for vaccine injury claims and compensation.
- 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a): This section outlines the damages available under the Vaccine Act, which includes compensation for pain and suffering, unreimbursed expenses, and life care costs.
Practical Implications
- The case underscores the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as a crucial mechanism for individuals seeking compensation for vaccine-related injuries.
- It highlights the potential for settlements in vaccine injury claims, allowing for prompt compensation without lengthy litigation.
- Legal practitioners should be aware of the stipulation process and the importance of documenting claims thoroughly to facilitate settlements.
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in vaccine injury claims and the legal protections available to individuals under the Vaccine Act. By understanding the stipulation process and the criteria for compensation, claimants can better navigate the challenges of seeking justice in vaccine-related injury cases.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 16, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools