VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00627
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00627
Petitioner: Joanna King
Filed: 2013-08-30
Decided: 2016-05-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2010-11-13
Condition: numerous medical problems related to an overactive immune response
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 70000

AI-assisted case summary:
Joanna King filed a petition on August 30, 2013, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that an influenza (flu) vaccine she received on November 13, 2010, caused her to suffer "numerous medical problems related to an overactive immune response" and that these residual effects lasted for more than six months. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the respondent, denied that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner's alleged injuries or any other injury or current condition. Despite these opposing positions, both parties entered into a joint stipulation on January 21, 2016, to settle the case. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the court. The stipulation awarded Joanna King a lump sum of $70,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner was represented by Danielle A. Strait of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, and respondent was represented by Alexis B. Babcock of the U.S. Department of Justice. Subsequently, on February 16, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation regarding attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner requested reimbursement in the amount of $49,500, to which the respondent did not object. Petitioner's counsel represented that Petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket, litigation-related expenses. Special Master Corcoran approved this amount as reasonable and directed that an award of $49,500 be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and her counsel, Danielle A. Strait, Esq., for all attorney's fees and costs, representing all such fees and costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e).

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Joanna King alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on November 13, 2010, caused numerous medical problems related to an overactive immune response. The respondent denied causation. The parties entered into a joint stipulation to settle the case, which was adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The stipulation resulted in an award of $70,000.00 for all damages. A subsequent stipulation addressed attorney's fees and costs, resulting in an additional award of $49,500.00, payable jointly to Petitioner and her counsel, Danielle A. Strait of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA. Petitioner was represented by Danielle A. Strait and respondent by Alexis B. Babcock. The public decision does not describe the specific medical problems, onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the medical expert testimony or opinions presented. The theory of causation is based on the parties' agreement to settle, rather than a finding of fact or law regarding the vaccine-injury relationship.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00627-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-03-07
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/21/2016) Regarding 50 DECISION Stipulation Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-627V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Filed: January 21, 2016
JOANNA KING, *
*
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
* Overactive Immune Response.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle A. Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 30, 2013, Joanna King filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that she suffered
from “numerous medical problems related to an overactive immune response” as a result of her
November 13, 2010, receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that she
experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by her flu vaccination,
and denies that the vaccine caused any other injury or her current condition. Nonetheless both parties,
while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on January 21, 2016) that
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 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 7
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 $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This 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 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 each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00627-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-05-25
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/17/2016) Regarding 56 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 60 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-627V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Filed: February 17, 2016
JOANNA KING, *
*
Petitioner, *
* Decision; Attorney’s Fees and
v. * Costs.
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle A. Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On August 30, 2013, Joanna King filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Thereafter, on January 21, 2016, the parties filed a
stipulation settling the case and detailing the amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently
issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner an award
as outlined in the stipulation.
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 1:13-vv-00627-UNJ Document 60 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2
On February 16, 2016, the parties filed another stipulation, this time regarding attorney’s
fees and costs. Petitioner requests reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of
$49,500. This amount represent sums to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in
compliance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner’s counsel represents that Petitioner did not
incurred out-of-pocket, litigation-related expenses in conjunction with this proceeding.
I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award of $49,500 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
Petitioner’s counsel, Danielle A. Strait, Esq., for all attorney’s fees and costs. Payment of this
amount represents all attorney’s fees and costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 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