VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_06-vv-00764
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_06-vv-00764
Petitioner: M.G.
Filed: 2006-11-13
Decided: 2015-08-13
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2003-12-01
Condition: encephalopathy and other neurological injuries
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 1261000

AI-assisted case summary:
On November 13, 2006, Natalia Glaser filed a petition on behalf of her minor son, M.G., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that M.G. developed encephalopathy and other neurological injuries as a result of receiving the Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis (DTaP) vaccine on or about December 1, 2003, and that the residual effects lasted more than six months. The respondent denied that the DTaP vaccine caused M.G.'s injuries or that his disabilities were a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these opposing positions, the parties agreed to resolve the case through a stipulated settlement, described by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran as a "protracted litigative risk settlement process." Petitioner's counsel was Paul S. Dannenberg. Respondent's counsel was Glenn A. MacLeod. The parties filed a stipulation on July 27, 2015. Special Master Corcoran issued a decision on December 16, 2015, adopting the stipulation as the court's damages award. The total compensation awarded was $1,261,000. This amount was structured as follows: $622,061.54 for first-year life care expenses and trust seed funds, paid to Counsel Trust as trustee of a grantor revisionary trust for M.G.'s benefit; $533,452.33 for partial lost future earnings and pain and suffering, paid to Natalia Glaser as guardian/conservator of M.G.'s estate; $26,459.50 for past unreimbursable expenses, paid directly to Natalia Glaser; $22,002.61 for reimbursement of a California Medicaid lien, paid jointly to petitioner and the California Department of Health Care Services; and an unspecified amount to purchase an annuity contract for the balance. Petitioner later moved for reconsideration of the attorney's fees and costs award. In a decision dated August 25, 2016, Special Master Corcoran granted the motion, vacating his prior decision and recalculating the award. The final award for attorney's fees and costs was $158,430.31, paid jointly to Petitioner and her counsel, Paul Dannenberg, Esq., plus $2,000.00 in direct costs payable to Petitioner. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests performed, treatments received, or the names of all medical experts beyond those involved in the fee calculation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that the DTaP vaccine administered on or about December 1, 2003, caused M.G. to develop encephalopathy and other neurological injuries, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The case was resolved via a stipulated settlement, adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on December 16, 2015, awarding $1,261,000 in total compensation. The stipulation was reached despite the respondent's denial of causation. Petitioner's counsel was Paul S. Dannenberg, and respondent's counsel was Glenn A. MacLeod. The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury or name the experts who provided reports on causation, other than mentioning Dr. Asaikar, Dr. Crosley, and Dr. Hall in the context of attorney's fees and costs, with Dr. Asaikar noted as having provided two reports intended to establish causation and being the primary testifying expert. Attorney's fees and costs were subsequently recalculated and awarded at $158,430.31 plus $2,000.00 in direct costs.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_06-vv-00764-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-12-16
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/27/2015) Regarding 103 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 1 of 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 06-764V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NATALIA GLASER, parent of *
M.G., a minor, * Filed: July 27, 2015
*
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
v. * Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular
* Pertussis (“DTaP”); Encephalopathy;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Neurological Injuries
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul S. Dannenberg, Huntington, VT, for Petitioner.
Glenn A. MacLeod, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 13, 2006, Natalia Glaser filed a petition, on behalf of her son, M.G., seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine
Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that M.G. developed encephalopathy and other neurological injuries
as a result of the Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine that he received on or
about December 1, 2003. Further, Petitioner alleges that the residual effects of this injury lasted
for more than six months.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States
Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116
Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published 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 whole decision will be available to
the public. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation 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 through 34 (2012)).

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 2 of 13
Respondent denies that the DTaP vaccine caused M.G.’s encephalopathy or any other
injury and further denies that his current disabilities are a sequela of a vaccine-related injury.
Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation
(filed July 27, 2015) that the issues before them could 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
(as attached hereto) 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 $622,061.54, which represents compensation for first year life care
expenses ($164,971.74) and trust seed funds ($457,090.00), in the form of a check
payable to Counsel Trust, as trustee of the grantor revisionary trust established for the
benefit of M.G.;
 A lump sum of $533,452.33, which amount represents compensation for partial lost
future earnings ($408,452.33) and pain and suffering ($125,000.00), in the form of a
check payable to Petitioner as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of M.G. for the
benefit of M.G. No payment shall be made until Petitioner provides Respondent with
documentation establishing that she has been appointed as the
guardian(s)/conservator(s) of M.G.’s estate;
 A lump sum of $26,459.50, which amount represents compensation for past
unreimbursable expenses, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, Natalia Glaser;
 A lump sum of $22,002.61, which amount represents reimbursement of a lien for
services rendered on behalf of M.G., in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner
and
Department of Health Care Services
Recovery Branch – MS 4720
P.O. Box 997421
Sacramento, CA 95899-7421
Attn: Class Action Unit
DHCS Account No: C91900546E-VAC03
 An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the
2

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 3 of 13
attached stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be
purchased.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a) of the Act.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amounts 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
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.
3

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 4 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 5 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 6 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 7 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 8 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 9 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 10 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 11 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 12 of 13

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 108 Filed 12/16/15 Page 13 of 13

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_06-vv-00764-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-08-25
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/29/2016) Regarding 116 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 118 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 06-764V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NATALIA GLASER, parent of *
M.G., a minor, * Filed: June 29, 2016
*
Petitioner, *
* Decision; Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul S. Dannenberg, Huntington, VT, for Petitioner.
Glenn A. MacLeod, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING PETITION’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION1
On November 13, 2006, Natalia Glaser filed a petition on behalf of her son, M.G., seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine
Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that M.G. experienced an encephalopathy and other neurological
injuries as a result of the Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine that he received
on or about December 1, 2003. After a protracted litigative risk settlement process, the parties
eventually stipulated to a damages award that was reduced to judgment on August 13, 2015. ECF
No. 106.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States
Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). 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 whole decision will
be available to the public. Id.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation 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 through 34 (2012)). For
purposes of brevity, all subsequent references to sections of the Act herein shall omit the 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa prefix.

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 118 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 3
On February 3, 2016, Ms. Glaser moved for an award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Fees
Application”) in the total amount of $208,307.39 (ECF No. 109). By decision dated June 6, 2016,
I granted in part Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, finding that she was entitled to
a total award of $165,254.95. ECF No. 114.
On June 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of my decision awarding
attorney’s fees and costs. ECF No. 115. She requests that I reconsider reduction of Dr. Asaikar’s
fees. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his fees were reduced by the amount of $1280.00 for only
being a “consulting rather than testifying expert,” but Dr. Asaikar was actually intended to be the
primary testifying expert (who provided two expert reports in this matter intended to establish
causation). She therefore requests that she be awarded an additional $1,280.00 in costs.
In addition, Petitioner has pointed out two errors in the calculation of attorney’s fees and
costs that resulted in her being awarded costs in excess of what she should have been awarded.
First, Petitioner noted that I had ordered payment of Dr. Asaikar’s fee twice, as it was already
included in Petitioner’s costs of $12,506.83. Second, Petitioner noted that Dr. Hall’s fee of
$6,207.50 did not include a deduction for $1,625.00 that was previously paid as a retained as part
of Petitioner’s costs of $12,506.83. Respondent has informed me that she will not be filing
anything commenting on the reconsideration request.
Vaccine Rule 10(e) governs motions for reconsideration of a special master’s decision, and
provides that “[e]ither party may file a motion for reconsideration of the special master’s decision
within 21 days after the issuance of the decision . . . .” Vaccine Rule 10(e)(1). Special masters
have the discretion to grant a motion for reconsideration if to do so would be in the “interest of
justice.” Vaccine Rule 10(e)(3). It is within the special master’s discretion to decide what the
“interest of justice” is in a given case. R.K. v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs, No. 03-632V, 2010
WL 5572074, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Jan. 10, 2011) (granting reconsideration of decision
dismissing case for failure to prosecute).
Here, I find that the interests of justice support both revisions requested by Petitioner.
Having looked again at the record in light of Petitioner's argument, I find persuasive her argument
that Dr. Asaikar's contributions to the case's success warrant awarding the amounts previously
deducted in my prior decision. In addition, I credit Petitioner and her counsel for raising instances
of overpayment in the fees decision, and will revise the calculation accordingly.
2

Case 1:06-vv-00764-UNJ Document 118 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above, and in the exercise of my discretion, I hereby grant the motion for
reconsideration – the prior decision dated June 6, 2016, is hereby VACATED and I award
attorney’s fees and costs as follows:
Contested Sum Amount Requested Reduction Total Awarded
Homer Firm Fees $17,711.30 $1,150.60 $16,560.70
Homer Firm Costs $2,114.25 $134.40 $1,979.85
Dannenberg Fees $135,222.50 $48,211.63 $87,010.87
Dannenberg Costs $12,506.83 $4,480.00 $8,026.83
Dr. Crosley Expert $2,400.00 None $2,400.00
Fees
Dr. Asaikar Expert $5,760.00 None $5,760.00
Fees
Dr. Hall Expert Fees $6,207.50 $1,625.00 $4,582.50
Ms. Holakiewicz’s $23,780.51 None $23,780.51
Life Care Planner
Fees
Guardianship Costs $9,254.50 $925.45 $8,329.05
Petitioner’s Direct $2,000.00 none $2,000.00
Costs
Accordingly, an award shall be made in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner
and her counsel, Paul Dannenberg, Esq., in the amount of $158,430.31, and a check for $2,000.00
payable to Petitioner.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment if (jointly or separately) they file notices
renouncing their right to seek review.
3