VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00682
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00682
Petitioner: Christine Pyne
Filed: 2014-05-22
Decided: 2015-01-05
Vaccine: Influenza
Vaccination date: 2010-09-15
Condition: inability to breathe, Raynaud’s Disease, swollen lymph nodes, neuropathy in her hands and feet, and a suspected auto immune disorder
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 11115

AI-assisted case summary:
Christine Pyne filed a petition for vaccine compensation on May 22, 2014, alleging that the Influenza vaccine received on September 15, 2010, along with Hepatitis B and TDaP vaccines on September 17, 2010, and an MMR vaccine on October 11, 2010, caused or aggravated injuries including inability to breathe, Raynaud's Disease, swollen lymph nodes, neuropathy, and a suspected autoimmune disorder. After reviewing the medical records, Ms. Pyne herself filed a motion to dismiss her petition on May 21, 2014, stating that an investigation of the facts and science showed she could not prove her entitlement to compensation. The court noted that to receive compensation, Ms. Pyne needed to prove either a "Table Injury" or that her injuries were actually caused by a vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a Table Injury, nor did it include a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence of vaccine causation. The court found insufficient evidence to meet her burden of proof and dismissed the petition for insufficient proof on May 22, 2014. Subsequently, on December 10, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation regarding attorneys' fees and costs. The court approved a lump sum of $11,115.48, payable jointly to Ms. Pyne and her counsel, representing reasonable fees and costs.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00682-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-06-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/22/2014) regarding 30 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00682-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-682V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
CHRISTINE PYNE, *
* Filed: May 22, 2014
Petitioner, *
* Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
v. * Dismissing the Petition; Insufficient Proof
* of Causation; Vaccine Act Entitlement;
* Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES , *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Thomas P. Gallagher, Somers Point, NJ, for Petitioner
Heather L. Pearlman, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION1
On September 16, 2013, Christine Pyne filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 alleging that the Influenza vaccine she received
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 (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 published 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,
1

Case 1:13-vv-00682-UNJ Document 34 Filed 06/19/14 Page 2 of 2
on September 15, 2010; the Hepatitis B, and Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular Pertussis (TDaP)
vaccines she received on September 17, 2010; and the Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR)
vaccine she received on October 11, 2010, all caused her to suffer or, in the alternative,
significantly aggravated various injuries, including inability to breathe, Raynaud’s Disease,
swollen lymph nodes, neuropathy in her hands and feet, and a suspected auto immune disorder.
See Petition at 1 (ECF Docket No. 1) and Amended Petition at 1 (ECF Docket No. 18).
After gathering her relevant medical records, Petitioner filed a motion on May 21, 2014
seeking a decision dismissing her petition, indicating that an investigation of the facts and
science supporting her claim had demonstrated that she would be unable to prove her entitlement
to compensation in the Vaccine Program.
To receive compensation under the Program, Ms. Pyne must prove either 1) that she
suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding
to one of her vaccinations, or 2) that she 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, did not
uncover any evidence that Ms. Pyne suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not
contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that Ms. Pyne’s
alleged injuries were vaccine-caused.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be given a Program award based solely on
the petitioner’s 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. Pyne 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
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.
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00682-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-01-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/11/2014) regarding 37 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00682-UNJ Document 41 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-682V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
CHRISTINE PYNE, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: December 11, 2014
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Thomas P. Gallagher, Somers Point, NJ, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On September 16, 2013, Christine Pyne filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 I issued a decision on May 22, 2014 denying
compensation for Petitioner. On December 10, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation regarding
attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a
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-00682-UNJ Document 41 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2
lump sum of $11,115.48, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel.
This amount represents a sum 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 amount of attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award of $11,115.48 shall be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
Petitioner’s counsel. 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
submitted motion.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