VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00310
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00310
Petitioner: A. H.
Filed: 2014-11-20
Decided: 2015-02-02
Vaccine: DTaP
Vaccination date: 2009-09-04
Condition: neurological injury
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 52751

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 11, 2012, Brandy Carpenter filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, A.H., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that A.H. suffered a neurological injury as a result of receiving the DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal conjugate, hepatitis B, inactive polio, and rotavirus vaccinations on September 4, 2009. The petition was filed on November 20, 2014. During a status conference on November 10, 2014, the petitioner indicated a desire to dismiss the case. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion for a decision dismissing the petition, stating that the respondent had been provided a copy in advance and expressed no opposition. The Special Master noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was actually caused by a vaccine. The public decision does not describe any evidence that A.H. suffered a "Table Injury." Furthermore, the petitioner withdrew her expert report, leaving no medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence in the record to establish that the alleged injury could have been caused by the vaccinations. The Special Master found insufficient evidence in the record for the petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Consequently, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof on December 11, 2014. On December 23, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation regarding attorneys' fees and costs. The Special Master approved the stipulation, awarding a total of $52,751.36 to be paid to the petitioner's current and former counsel. Petitioner's current counsel, William E. Cochran, Jr., was to receive $33,500.00, and former counsel, Ronald C. Homer of Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., was to receive $19,251.36. These amounts were to be paid via checks jointly payable to the petitioner and their respective counsel. The Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the decision dismissing the case and the subsequent decision approving the stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs. The public decision does not describe the specific neurological injury alleged, the onset of symptoms, any medical records, or the specific mechanism of causation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Brandy Carpenter, on behalf of minor A.H., alleged a neurological injury resulting from DTaP, Hib, pneumococcal conjugate, hepatitis B, inactive polio, and rotavirus vaccinations received on September 4, 2009. The petition was filed on November 11, 2012, and later dismissed for insufficient proof on December 11, 2014, by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The petitioner withdrew her expert report and presented no evidence of a "Table Injury" or that the alleged injury was caused by the vaccinations. The public decision does not specify the neurological injury, onset, symptoms, medical records, or expert opinions regarding causation. On February 2, 2015, Special Master Brian H. Corcoran approved a stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs, awarding a total of $52,751.36 to petitioner's current counsel, William E. Cochran, Jr. ($33,500.00), and former counsel, Ronald C. Homer ($19,251.36).

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00310-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-12-11
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/20/2014) regarding 44 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00310-UNJ Document 48 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-310
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BRANDY CARPENTER, parent of * Filed: November 20, 2014
A. H., a minor, *
*
Petitioner, * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
v. * Dismissing the Petition; Vaccine Act
* Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, PC, Memphis, TN, for
Petitioner.
Gordon Shemin, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On May 11, 2012, Brandy Carpenter filed a petition on behalf of A.H., her minor child,
seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the
“Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that A.H. suffered from a neurological injury as a result of
receiving the Diptheria-tetanus-acellular-Pertussis (“DTaP”), haemophilus influenza type B
(“Hib”), pneumococcal conjugate, hepatitis B (“hep B”), inactive polio, and rotovirus
vaccinations on September 4, 2009. See Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1).
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of
the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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 inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To
do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that 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 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, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10 – 34 (2006))
[hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to ' 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:12-vv-00310-UNJ Document 48 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 2
During a status conference in this case that was held on November 10, 2014, Petitioner
indicated that she had decided to request a decision dismissing this case. Order at 1 (ECF No.
42). She has now done so. Motion for a Decision Dismissing Petition (ECF No. 43). That motion
also indicated that Respondent was provided with a copy of it in advance of filing and expressed
no opposition to the motion. ECF No. 43 at 2.
To receive compensation under the Program, a petitioner must prove either (1) that he
suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding
to one of his vaccinations, or (2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine.
See §§13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record, however, does not uncover any
evidence that A.H. suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, Petitioner has indicated that she no longer
intends to rely upon her previously filed expert report and, therefore, the record does not contain
a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence establishing that the alleged injury
that A.H. experienced could have been caused by the vaccinations received.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Program award based solely on his
claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by the opinion
of a competent physician. §13(a)(1). In this case, there is insufficient evidence in the record for
Petitioner to meet her burden of proof. Petitioner’s claim therefore cannot succeed and must be
dismissed. §11(c)(1)(A).
Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00310-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-02-02
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/29/2014) regarding 50 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00310-UNJ Document 53 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-310V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
BRANDY CARPENTER, parent of *
A. H., a minor, * Filed: December 29, 2014
*
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Decision; Attorneys’
* Fees & Costs
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, PC, Memphis, TN, for
Petitioner.
Gordon Shemin, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On May 11, 2012, Brandy Carpenter filed a petition on behalf of A.H., her minor child,
seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 On
November 20, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion requesting a decision dismissing this case. I
subsequently issued a decision dismissing this case for insufficient proof.
1 Because this ruling contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of
the United States Court of Federal Claims, 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 inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To
do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that 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 ruling 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, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10 – 34 (2006))
[hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to ' 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:12-vv-00310-UNJ Document 53 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2
On December 23, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation regarding attorneys’ fees and costs.
The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a sum of $52,751.36 divided
among Petitioner’s current and former counsel. Petitioner’s current counsel (William E. Cochran,
Jr.) should receive a lump sum of $33,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in the form of a check
payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s current counsel. Petitioner’s former counsel (Ronald C.
Homer of Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C.) should receive a lump sum of $19,251.36 for
attorneys’ fees and costs in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s former
counsel. These amounts represent sums to which Respondent does not object. In addition, in
compliance with General Order #9, Petitioner has represented that she did not personally incur
any reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.
I approve the requested amounts for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award of $33,500.00 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
Petitioner’s current counsel, William E. Cochran, Jr., and an award of $19,251.36 should be
made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s former counsel, Ronald
C. Homer of Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C. 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.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