VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00547
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00547
Petitioner: Susan Carlisle
Filed: 2014-09-25
Decided: 2014-11-12
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2012-10-22
Condition: post-vaccination inflammation in her gluteus medius and maximus and that she continues to experience pain in her left hip area
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 18800

AI-assisted case summary:
Susan Carlisle filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered post-vaccination inflammation in her gluteus medius and maximus and continued pain in her left hip area as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on October 22, 2012. Initially, she alleged the vaccination was in her left buttocks, but later discovered and disclosed that it was administered in her left deltoid. Due to this discrepancy and the lack of evidence, Carlisle determined she would request a dismissal of her case. The court noted that to receive compensation, a petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that the injury was actually caused by the vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it include a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence that the alleged hip injury could have been caused by a vaccination administered in the deltoid. The court found insufficient evidence to meet her burden of proof and dismissed the case for insufficient proof. Subsequently, the parties filed a stipulation regarding attorneys' fees and costs, agreeing that Petitioner's counsel should receive a total of $18,800.00. The Special Master approved this amount as reasonable and ordered judgment to be entered in accordance with the stipulation.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00547-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-10-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/25/2014) regarding 32 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00547-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-547
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SUSAN CARLISLE, *
* Filed: September 25, 2014
*
Petitioner, * Petitioners’ Motion for a Decision
v. * Dismissing the Petition; Vaccine Act
* Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Donald Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Alexis Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On August 6, 2013, Susan Carlisle filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 alleging that she suffered from post-
vaccination inflammation in her gluteus medius and maximus and that she continues to
experience pain in her left hip area today, as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
October 22, 2012. See Petition at 1 (ECF No. 1). During a status conference in this case that was
held on June 25, 2014, the parties discussed the significance of fact questions pertaining to the
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 1:13-vv-00547-UNJ Document 39 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 2
site on Petitioner’s body where she received the vaccination, and whether their resolution had
any bearing upon the viability of her claim. Order at 1 (ECF No. 24).
Subsequently, Petitioner filed documentation indicating that the vaccination in question
had been administered in her left deltoid (rather than her left buttocks as she previously alleged).
Exhibit 10 at 1 (ECF No. 26). During a status conference on September 24, 2014, Petitioner’s
counsel indicated that based on the newly discovered evidence regarding the site of vaccination
Petitioner had determined she would request a decision dismissing the case. Order at 1 (ECF No.
30). She has now done so. Motion at 1 (ECF No. 31).
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 Ms. Carlisle suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a
medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that the alleged injury that
Ms. Carlisle experienced in her gluteus or hip could have been caused by a vaccination
administered in her left deltoid.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be given 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 Ms. Carlisle 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_13-vv-00547-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-11-12
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/17/2014) regarding 36 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00547-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-547V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
SUSAN CARLISLE, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: October 17, 2014
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’
* Fees & Costs
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Downing, Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Alexis Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On August 6, 2013, Susan Carlisle filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 On September 25, 2014, Petitioner filed an
unopposed motion requesting entry of a decision dismissing this case. I subsequently issued a
decision finding that there was insufficient evidence in the record for Ms. Carlisle to meet her
burden of proof, and therefore Petitioner’s claim could not succeed and must be dismissed.
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 1:13-vv-00547-UNJ Document 40 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 2
On October 16, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation regarding attorneys’ fees and costs.
The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a total of $18,800.00 (to be
divided among several firms where Petitioner’s counsel worked during the pendency of this
matter). This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In compliance with
General Order #9, Petitioner has represented that she did not incur any reimbursable costs in
proceeding on this petition.
I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
(a) an award of $1,600.00 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner,
Petitioner’s counsel (Andrew Downing, Esq.) and Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable;
(b) an award of $14,800.00 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner,
Petitioner’s counsel (Andrew Downing, Esq.) and Hennelly & Steadman PLC; and (c) an award
of $2,400.00 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner, Petitioner’s
counsel (Andrew Downing, Esq.) and Van Cott & Talamante PLLC. 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