VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_09-vv-00766
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_09-vv-00766
Petitioner: Anne M. Scott
Filed: 2015-03-16
Decided: 2015-04-08
Vaccine: Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
Vaccination date: 
Condition: myofasciitis and/or an autoimmune syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 15000

AI-assisted case summary:
Anne M. Scott filed a petition on March 16, 2015, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered myofasciitis and/or an autoimmune syndrome and related complications as a result of receiving the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the respondent, denied that the vaccine caused the alleged injuries. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on March 15, 2015. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as his decision. The stipulation awarded Anne M. Scott a lump sum of $15,000.00, payable to her, as compensation for all damages. Subsequently, on July 20, 2015, the parties filed another stipulation regarding attorney's fees and costs. This stipulation agreed to an award of $135,000.00, payable jointly to the petitioner and her counsel, Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA. Special Master Corcoran also approved this stipulation as reasonable. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation. Petitioner was represented by Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, and respondent was represented by Debra A. Filteau Begley. The decision was issued by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Anne M. Scott alleged that she suffered myofasciitis and/or an autoimmune syndrome and related complications as a result of receiving the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, agreeing to an award of $15,000.00 for all damages. The specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or scientific basis for the alleged causation was not detailed in the public decision, as the case was resolved by stipulation. The decision was issued by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on April 8, 2015, with attorney fees and costs awarded on August 10, 2015. Petitioner's counsel was Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, and respondent's counsel was Debra A. Filteau Begley.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_09-vv-00766-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-04-08
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/16/2015) regarding 97 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:09-vv-00766-UNJ Document 98 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 09-766V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
ANNE M. SCOTT, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: March 16, 2015
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”)
* Vaccine; Myofasciitis
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 9, 2009, Anne M. Scott filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges
that she suffered myofasciitis and/or an autoimmune syndrome and related complications as a
result of receiving the Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision 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 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of
confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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 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.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34
(West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A.
' 300aa.

Case 1:09-vv-00766-UNJ Document 98 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s myofasciitis and/or autoimmune syndrome and any
related medical problems were caused by the receipt of the HPV vaccine. Nonetheless both
parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed March 15,
2015 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 $15,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
Stipulation ¶ 8.
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/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
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.
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_09-vv-00766-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-08-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/20/2015) regarding 102 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:09-vv-00766-UNJ Document 105 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 09-766V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
ANNE M. SCOTT, *
* Filed: July 20, 2015
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner
Debra Begley, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On November 9, 2009, Anne Scott filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program@). On March 15, 2015, the parties
filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision
finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award outlined by the
stipulation.
On July 20, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in regards
to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a
lump sum of $135,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel.
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.

Case 1:09-vv-00766-UNJ Document 105 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 2
This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in compliance
with General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that she did incur any reimbursable costs in
proceeding on this petition.
I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $135,000.00 payable jointly to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq. 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 the parties’ stipulation.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their
right to seek review.