The United States Court of Federal Claims has approved a settlement in a vaccine injury case, awarding James Quick $50,000. The case, filed on April 13, 2021, involved a claim that the influenza vaccine Quick received on October 11, 2018, led to chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP).
The Details of the Case
The court document, a decision from Special Master Christian J. Moran, outlines the specifics of the settlement. Quick’s petition stated that the flu vaccine, as listed in the Vaccine Injury Table, caused him to develop CIDP. This table, found in 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), is a list of injuries that are presumed to be caused by certain vaccines, making it easier for individuals to receive compensation.
The court noted that Quick had not previously received any compensation or settlement for his condition.
The Government’s Response
While the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the respondent in the case, denied that the flu vaccine caused Quick’s CIDP or any other injury, the parties ultimately agreed to a joint stipulation. This means both sides came to an agreement outside of a full trial. The court, after reviewing the stipulation, found it to be reasonable and adopted it as the basis for its decision.
The Settlement Terms
The settlement includes a lump sum payment of $50,000.00 to Quick. This amount is intended to cover all damages that Quick is eligible for under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The payment will be made via an Automated Clearing House (ACH) deposit to Quick’s counsel’s IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers Trust Account) account for prompt disbursement to Quick.
Public Accessibility and Redaction
The court’s decision is considered public information and will be accessible on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc. This is in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. However, the parties have 14 days to identify any medical or other private information that they believe should be redacted from the public version of the decision to protect Quick’s privacy. Any such changes will be reflected in the final document posted online.
Next Steps
Unless either party files a motion for review, the court clerk is instructed to enter the judgment based on the decision and the attached stipulation. This means the settlement will become final unless someone challenges it. The parties can expedite the process by filing a notice renouncing their right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.
The Role of the Special Master
Special Masters, like Christian J. Moran in this case, play a crucial role in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They are appointed by the court to hear and decide vaccine injury claims. They review the evidence, consider the arguments presented by both sides, and make decisions about compensation. This process allows individuals who believe they have been injured by a vaccine to seek compensation without having to file a traditional lawsuit.
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act established the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) to provide a streamlined process for individuals who believe they have been injured by certain vaccines. The program is funded by a tax on vaccines, and its goal is to provide compensation to those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries without the need for lengthy and expensive litigation. The VICP covers a wide range of vaccines, including those for influenza, measles, mumps, rubella, and others. The Vaccine Injury Table lists the specific vaccines and the injuries that are presumed to be caused by them.
Significance of the Case
This case highlights the operation of the VICP. It shows how individuals can seek compensation for vaccine-related injuries, even when the government disputes the causal link. The settlement demonstrates that the program can provide a resolution for both sides, allowing the injured party to receive compensation while avoiding the costs and uncertainties of a trial. The public accessibility of the decision promotes transparency and allows others to understand how the program works and the types of cases it addresses.