VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_11-vv-00477
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_11-vv-00477
Petitioner: A.C.
Filed: 2015-10-06
Decided: 2016-03-07
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2008-07-25
Condition: transverse myelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 351671

AI-assisted case summary:
On July 22, 2011, Casey and Jeffrey Compton, as parents and legal representatives of their minor daughter A.C., filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They alleged that the DTaP, hepatitis B, IPV, Hib, and PCV vaccinations A.C. received on July 25, 2008, caused her to develop transverse myelitis (TM) and that she experienced residual effects for more than six months. The respondent denied that the vaccines caused A.C.'s alleged injury or current condition. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the issues through a stipulation filed on October 1, 2015. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as the court's decision awarding damages. The stipulation awarded a lump sum of $351,671.00, representing compensation for first-year life care expenses ($51,671.00) and combined lost future earnings and pain and suffering ($300,000.00). This amount was to be paid as a check to Petitioners as guardian(s)/conservator(s) of the estate of A.C. for A.C.'s benefit, contingent upon Petitioners providing documentation of their appointment. Additionally, an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity, as described in the stipulation, was awarded to be paid to the insurance company from which the annuity would be purchased. These amounts represent compensation for all damages available under the Act. The Special Master approved the award and directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioners alleged that the DTaP, hepatitis B, IPV, Hib, and PCV vaccinations received by A.C. on July 25, 2008, caused her to develop transverse myelitis (TM) and experience residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied that the vaccines caused A.C.'s alleged injury or current condition. The parties settled the case via stipulation, and the Special Master adopted the stipulation as the decision awarding damages. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, medical experts, onset, symptoms, tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. The award was a lump sum of $351,671.00 for first-year life care expenses and combined lost future earnings and pain and suffering, plus an amount for an annuity. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the decision on March 7, 2016. Petitioner counsel was Ronald W. Cox, and respondent counsel was Jennifer L. Reynaud.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_11-vv-00477-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-03-07
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/06/2015) Regarding 71 DECISION Stipulation Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 11-477V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
CASEY COMPTON and *
JEFFREY COMPTON, as Parents/Next *
Friends and Legal Representatives of * Filed: October 6, 2015
A.C., their minor daughter, *
*
Petitioners, * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis
v. * (“DTaP”) Vaccine; hepatitis B (“Hep B”)
* Vaccine; Inactive Polio (“IPV”) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Haemophilus Influenza (“Hib”) Vaccine;
HUMAN SERVICES, * Pneumococcal Conjugate (“PCV”) Vaccine;
* Transverse Myelitis (“TM”)
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald W. Cox, McCarthy Wilson, Rockville, MD, for Petitioner.
Jennifer L. Reynaud, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 22, 2011, Casey and Jeffrey Compton filed a petition, as parents/next friends and
legal representatives of A.C., their minor daughter, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioners allege that the diphtheria-tetanus-
acellular pertussis (“DTaP”), hepatitis B (“Hep B”), inactivated polio (IPV”), haemophilus influenza
(“Hib”), and pneumococcal conjugate (“PCV”) vaccinations that A.C. received on July 25, 2008,
caused her to develop transverse myelitis (“TM”). Petitioners further allege that A.C. experienced the
residual effects of the injury 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 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 12
Respondent denies that A.C.’s alleged injury and residual effects were caused-in-fact by the
DTaP, Hep B, IPV, Hib, or PCV vaccines. Respondent further denies that any of these vaccines, either
alone or in combination, caused A.C. any other injury or her current condition. Nonetheless both
parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed October 1, 2015)
that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioners
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 $351,671.00, which amount represents compensation for first year life care
expenses ($51,671.00), and combined lost future earnings and pain and suffering
($300,000.00), in the form of a check payable to Petitioners as guardian(s)/conservator(s)
of the estate of A.C. for the benefit of A.C. No payment shall be made until Petitioners
provide Respondent with documentation establishing that they have been appointed as the
guardian(s)/conservator(s) of A.C.’s estate; and
 An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contracted described in the attached
stipulation, paid to the insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased.
Stipulation ¶ 8. These amounts 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.
2

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 10 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 11 of 12

Case 1:11-vv-00477-UNJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/16 Page 12 of 12