VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00766
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00766
Petitioner: I.H.
Filed: 2013-10-02
Decided: 2016-03-25
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2012-12-10
Condition: narcolepsy, cataplexy, hypersomnia, lack of coordination/ataxia
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 550000

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 2, 2013, Aleskis Brown, as mother and guardian for her minor son I.H., filed a petition for vaccine compensation. The petition alleged that I.H. developed narcolepsy, cataplexy, hypersomnia, and lack of coordination/ataxia as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on December 10, 2012. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the vaccine caused I.H.'s alleged injuries. The parties, however, reached a joint stipulation for damages. The Special Master determined that the onset of I.H.'s condition began between January 6 and 8, 2013. The parties agreed to a settlement, and on March 25, 2016, Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey entered a decision awarding I.H. a lump sum of $550,000.00 as compensation for all damages. This award was made in the form of a check payable to Aleskis Brown as guardian of I.H.'s estate. The case proceeded as a Table claim, as narcolepsy is listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The parties also agreed to further proceedings to award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Michael G. McLaren represented the petitioner, and Darryl R. Wishard represented the respondent. The decision was unpublished.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner I.H., a minor, by his mother Aleskis Brown, alleged that a December 10, 2012, influenza vaccine caused narcolepsy, cataplexy, hypersomnia, and lack of coordination/ataxia. The respondent denied causation. The parties stipulated to a settlement, and Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey entered a decision on March 25, 2016, awarding $550,000.00 as compensation for all damages. The case proceeded as a Table claim, as narcolepsy is listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of causation, expert testimony, or detailed clinical findings. Petitioner counsel was Michael G. McLaren, and respondent counsel was Darryl R. Wishard.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00766-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-08-04
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 07/14/2015) regarding 42 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: July 14, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I.H., a minor, by his mother * UNPUBLISHED
ALESKIS BROWN, *
* No. 13-766V
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Special Master Dorsey
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Fact Ruling; Onset; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Narcolepsy; Cataplexy
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Darryl R. Wishard, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING REGARDING FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. Introduction
On October 2, 2013, Aleskis Brown (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 in which she alleged that her son, I.H.,
received an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on December 10, 2012, and which caused him to
develop “narcolepsy, hypersomnia, lack of coordination/ataxia, neurologic and/or physical
1 Because this published ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to post this decision 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, 116 Stat. 2899,
codified as amended, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). In accordance with the Vaccine Rules, 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). Further, consistent with the rule
requirement, a motion for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review,
the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision,
such material will be deleted from public access.
2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42
U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual
section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 9
impairments and other injuries.” Petition (“Pet.”) at 1. Because the medical records and
petitioner’s testimony reference inconsistent onset dates, a fact hearing was held on April 7,
2015, to determine the onset date of I.H.’s symptoms.
Upon consideration of the record as a whole, the undersigned finds that the onset of I.H.’s
injury began between January 6 and 8, 2013.
II. Procedural Background
Petitioner filed the petition for compensation on October 2, 2013. She then filed medical
records from October 3, 2013, through March 14, 2014. A Statement of Completion was filed on
March 14, 2014.
An initial status conference was held on November 12, 2013, during which the
undersigned discussed with the parties the status of the medical record collection process.
Petitioner was ordered to file the outstanding records and an updated Statement of Completion
by January 13, 2014. Order dated November 12, 2013.
On April 14, 2014, respondent filed a status report stating that petitioner had not yet filed
an expert report, and that upon review of I.H.’s medical records, settlement would “not be
possible based upon the record as it exist[ed] at” that time. Respondent’s Status Report filed
April 14, 2014, at 1.
Respondent filed the Rule 4(c) report on June 10, 2014, recommending that
compensation be denied because petitioner had not offered a medical theory or a medical expert
report in support of her claim. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 8. Specifically, respondent
stated that petitioner had not offered a reputable medical theory establishing that the flu vaccine
“either can cause narcolepsy with cataplexy, cerebellar ataxia, hypersomnia, and unspecified
‘other physical and neurological symptoms,’ (general causation), or that it did so in I.H.’s case
(specific causation).” Id. Respondent further stated that while petitioner relied on a temporal
relationship between the flu vaccine and the onset of I.H.’s narcolepsy, “proximity alone is
insufficient to establish specific causation.” Id. Finally, respondent emphasized that the records
did not establish an onset date for I.H.’s alleged vaccine-related injuries because the records
listed various and inconsistent onset dates. Id.
On August 5, 2014, the undersigned held a status conference to discuss the conflicting
information in the record regarding the onset date of I.H.’s injuries. The undersigned suggested
that petitioner further investigate whether there were any additional records that would assist in
clarifying the onset date. Order dated August 5, 2014, at 1-2. Petitioner filed a status report on
October 6, 2014, stating that she did “not have any additional records to file” at that time.
Petitioner’s Status Report filed October 6, 2014. On October 28, 2014, respondent filed a status
report identifying the records that contained inconsistent dates regarding onset. Respondent’s
Status Report filed October 28, 2014, at 1-2.
On April 7, 2015, a fact hearing was held in Memphis, Tennessee, to obtain testimony
from petitioner to help determine the onset date of I.H.’s alleged injuries. After the hearing, the
2

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 9
undersigned ordered the parties to file the photographs and additional medical records referenced
during the hearing by May 15, 2015. Order dated April 15, 2015. This case is now ripe for
adjudication on the issue of onset.
III. Standards for Finding Facts
Special masters must first analyze medical records when beginning the fact finding
process. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(2). Special masters may rely on medical records and
testimony when determining the onset date of an alleged vaccine-related injury. See Cucuras v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Contemporaneous
medical records are presumed to be accurate. Id. at 1528.
When medical records and affidavits contain discrepancies or contradictions, special
masters are encouraged to hold hearings to obtain testimony from the affiants. See Campbell v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779-80 (2006). “Medical records, in general,
warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence,” and in the face of conflicting oral testimony and
contemporaneous medical records, special masters may give greater weight to contemporaneous
medical records. Cucuras, 993 F.2d at 1526, 1528. Special masters may also consider
explanations for inconsistencies between medical records and testimony. For example,
inconsistencies can result from: (1) a person’s failure to tell doctors all relevant details; (2) a
doctor’s failure to document everything reported to him or her; (3) a person’s failure to recall
events when testifying; and/or (4) a person’s purposeful recounting of nonexistent symptoms.
See La Londe v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 110 Fed. Cl. 184, 203 (2013). The strength of
a witness’s testimony determines whether the testimony is more probative than medical records.
See Andreu v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 569 F.3d 1367, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also
Bradley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
IV. Summary of the Evidence
The undersigned has considered the entirety of the record. § 300aa-13(a)(1). The
evidence presented includes: I.H.’s medical records, petitioner’s affidavit, and petitioner’s
testimony. A review and analysis of each type of evidence is discussed below.
A. Medical Records
I.H. was born on August 19, 2005, and he received the flu vaccine at issue in this case on
December 10, 2012. Petitioner’s Exhibit (“Pet. Ex.”) 2 at 1. The first time I.H. saw a physician
after his December 2012 flu vaccination was on February 15, 2013, when he presented to Dr.
Abubakar Naida’s office for a well-child visit. Pet. Ex. 4 at 1. The records from this visit state
that I.H. did not have any sleep problems and note that he was sleeping eight to nine hours a
night and napping for two hours during the day. Id. The records also state that petitioner did not
report any problems to the nurse who evaluated I.H. Id.
On March 4, 2013, petitioner took I.H. to the emergency room (“E.R.”) at Le Bonheur
Children’s Hospital (“Le Bonheur”) for general weakness and fatigue. Pet. Ex. 7 at 251, 264.
3

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 9
The chief complaint was “fatigue times one month” (approximately February 4, 2013). Id. at
264. I.H.’s diagnosis on that date was fatigue. Id. at 265.
Two days later, on March 6, 2013, petitioner brought I.H. back to Dr. Naida’s office
because I.H.’s school contacted petitioner to inform her that I.H. had been falling asleep during
the school day. Pet. Ex. 4 at 5; Pet. Ex. 7 at 13. The medical records from this visit state that
petitioner told Dr. Naida that I.H.’s symptoms started two months prior (approximately January
6, 2013). Pet. Ex. 12 at 22. Dr. Naida documented that I.H. was slightly ataxic and wobbly
when walking. Pet. Ex. 4 at 5. Dr. Naida instructed petitioner to take her son to the E.R. at Le
Bonheur because he thought I.H. could have post viral cerebellar ataxia or intoxic
encephalopathy. Id. at 6.
The medical records from the March 6, 2013 visit to Le Bonheur list three different onset
dates. Dr. Shelley Ost, one of I.H.’s attending physicians, reported that I.H. “presents 1-1/2-
month history of fatigue” (one month is approximately February 6; one and a half months is
approximately January 20, 2013; two months is approximately January 6, 2013). Pet. Ex. 7 at
29. I.H.’s neurology report stated that he had a “month-long history of being overly sleepy”
(approximately February 6, 2013). Id. at 36. Dr. Mary McGinty noted that I.H.’s “fatigue and
sleepiness started about 6 weeks ago” (approximately January 23, 2013). Id. at 39.
During this March 6, 2013 visit, the attending physicians noted that I.H. was
experiencing weakness and fatigue. Pet. Ex. 7 at 30. Petitioner told the physicians that she had
been monitoring I.H.’s sleep habits to ensure that he was not waking up during the night to play
video games. Id. at 29. During this E.R. visit, I.H. fell asleep in the middle of having
conversations and when he attempted to complete tasks. Id. at 13.
On March 7, 2013, petitioner took I.H. for a consultation with a neurologist, Dr. Paras
Bhattarai, at Le Bonheur. Pet. Ex. 7 at 22. The record from this visit indicates that I.H. was
experiencing hallucinations before falling asleep. Id. Upon examination, I.H. was slightly
unsteady when he walked. Id. Dr. Bhattarai concluded that I.H. suffered from excessive
daytime sleepiness and possible narcolepsy.3 Id. at 24. He suggested that I.H. undergo sleep
studies. Id.
The March 7, 2013 medical records list three different onset dates for I.H.’s symptoms.
Dr. Bhattarai noted, “Mother says that 1/2 month ago, the patient started to have sleepiness
during the daytime” (one half month or two weeks prior is approximately February 21, 2013; one
month prior is approximately February 7, 2013; and two months prior is approximately January
7, 2013). Another record from that date states that I.H. had a “history of excessive daytime
sleepiness for 2-3 weeks” (from approximately February 14, 2013 to February 23, 2013). Id. at
24. Dr. Shelley Ost’s progress note from March 7, 2013, states that I.H. had “6weeks [sic] of
sleepiness” (approximately January 24, 2013). Id. at 53.
3 Narcolepsy is a “recurrent, uncontrollable, brief episodes of sleep, often associated . . .
hallucinations, cataplexy, and sleep paralysis. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1232
(32nd ed. 2012) (“Dorland’s”).
4

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 5 of 9
On March 8, 2013, petitioner took I.H. to meet with pulmonologist and sleep medicine
specialist, Dr. Robert Schoumacher. Pet. Ex. 7 at 19, 21. The notes from this visit state “[p]er
mom, [I.H.] began to have daytime sleepiness about 2 months” (approximately January 8, 2013).
Id. at 19. During this visit, Dr. Schoumacher noted that I.H.’s history was “suspicious for
narcolepsy.” Id. at 20. The medical records note that petitioner stated that I.H. had fallen asleep
during a professional basketball game that they had recently attended and also at the circus. Id.
at 19.
Later that same day, Dr. Bhattarai met with I.H. and petitioner. Pet. Ex. 7 at 46. Dr.
Bhattarai’s progress note states that I.H. had “excessive sleepiness for more than 1 month”
(approximately February 8, 2013). Id. at 47. On that same date, medical student Patrick
Cleeton’s progress note stated that I.H. had a “6 wk h/o excessive sleepiness” (approximately
January 25, 2013). Id. at 50, 52. I.H.’s Le Bonheur discharge papers, dated March 8, 2013, state
that petitioner reported that I.H.’s narcolepsy symptoms began 7 weeks prior (approximately
January 18, 2013). Pet. Ex. 3 at 1; Pet. Ex. 7 at 26.
On March 12 and 13, 2013, I.H. underwent sleep studies with Dr. Schoumacher. Pet. Ex.
5 at 1-3. Dr. Schoumacher diagnosed I.H. with narcolepsy and cataplexy.4 Id. at 3. The sleep
study assessment by Dr. Schoumacher notes that I.H. “was recently hospitalized for complaints
of severe daytime sleepiness of 2 months duration” (approximately January 12-13, 2013). Pet.
Ex. 9 at 14.
During a March 19, 2013 follow-up visit with Dr. Schoumacher, petitioner stated that
I.H.’s condition had “worsened over the past year.” Pet. Ex. 9 at 11. The notes from that visit
also state that I.H. has had a “2month [sic] history of poor sleep,” consistent with the dated listed
in Dr. Schoumacher’s first visit records. Id. Dr. Schoumacher confirmed the assessment of
narcolepsy and cataplexy. Id. at 13.
On March 22, 2013, I.H. followed up with pediatric pulmonologist Dr. James Tutor. Pet.
Ex. 9 at 9-10. During this visit, petitioner reported that I.H. was hallucinating, had to take naps
at school, and suffered from cataplexy. Id. at 9. Petitioner also requested that I.H. receive a
prescription for Adderall. Id. Dr. Tutor’s assessment was narcolepsy with cataplexy. Id. at 10.
On April 9, 2013, I.H. again followed up with Dr. Schoumacher. Pet. Ex. 9 at 7-8. At
this point, I.H.’s sleep had improved, and he woke up on fewer occasions during the night, but
his mother noted that his daily functions worsened if he did not take naps at school. Id. at 7.
On April 11, 2013, and August 26, 2013, petitioner met with a committee from I.H.’s
school to develop a service plan for I.H. based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Pet. Ex. 11 at
7; Pet. Ex. 35 at 10. To make sure I.H. did not experience losses of energy, the school agreed to
give I.H. snacks if he experienced sweating or faintness. Pet. Ex. 11 at 7.
4 Cataplexy is “a condition in which there are abrupt attacks of muscular weakness and hypotonia
triggered by an emotional stimulus . . . It is often associated with narcolepsy.” Dorland’s at 303.
5

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 6 of 9
On June 4, 2013, petitioner took I.H. to Dr. Schoumacher for a follow-up visit. Pet. Ex. 9
at 5-6. At that time, I.H.’s sleep schedule and quality of sleep had improved, although he
continued to wake up at night and take naps throughout the day. Id. at 5. I.H. continued to be
assessed with severe narcolepsy with cataplexy. Id. at 6. On July 30, 2013, I.H. again followed
up with Dr. Schoumacher, who noted that I.H.’s sleep had improved. Id. at 3-4.
On August 22, 2013, I.H. presented to Dr. Douglas MacGaw of the Raleigh Group, P.C.,
with complaints of fatigue and sweating after standing for a short period of time. Pet. Ex. 6 at
10, 12. During this visit, petitioner reported that I.H. had narcolepsy, but Dr. Douglas MacGaw
noted that I.H. had a normal exam and there was “no evidence of disease.” Id.
On September 24, 2013, I.H. returned to see Dr. Schoumacher. Pet. Ex. 9 at 1. I.H.’s
sleep quality and schedule continued to improve, and he was doing better at school, but he
continued to suffer from sleep paralysis, cataplexy, and nightmares. Id. The assessment again
was severe narcolepsy with cataplexy. Pet. Ex. 9 at 2.
On October 28 and 29, 2013, I.H. met with child psychologist, Dr. Peter Zinkus. Pet. Ex.
8 at 1. It was noted that I.H. continued to suffer from sleep paralysis and hallucinations, and Dr.
Zinkus thought I.H. might also have adjustment disorder.5 Id. at 1-4.
B. Petition, Affidavit, and Testimony
1. Petition and Affidavit
The petition and petitioner’s affidavit allege that after I.H. received the flu vaccine on
December 10, 2012, he developed excessive sleepiness beginning in mid-January 2013
(approximately five to seven weeks after receiving the flu vaccine). Pet. Ex. 1 at 1; Pet. at 1-2.
This suggests an onset timeframe of January 14 through January 28, 2013. Petitioner stated in
her affidavit that I.H.’s symptoms were not present before he received the flu vaccination and
that they persisted for at least six months thereafter. Pet. Ex. 1 at 2.
2. Testimony
During the fact-finding hearing held on April 7, 2015, petitioner was unable to pinpoint
the date on which I.H.’s symptoms began. Petitioner admitted that when she provided I.H.’s
doctors with onset dates, she just “threw [out] those times” and did not realize she would have to
account for specific days. Tr. 42. Petitioner testified that she “really didn’t have a specific time”
in mind because she did not know at the time of I.H.’s medical appointments that his condition
was serious. Tr. 42. Petitioner did note that I.H.’s symptoms became progressively worse. Tr.
73. Ultimately, petitioner stated that I.H.’s onset “. . . started within [the January 6, 2013] time
period . . . ” and not in February 2013 (agreeing with counsel that onset was on January 6, 2013).
Tr. 43.
5 Adjustment disorder is “a maladaptive reaction to identifiable stressful life events . . . .”
Dorland’s at 547.
6

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 7 of 9
Petitioner did recall three events that helped her to specify the onset date. First,
petitioner recalled that she was aware of I.H.’s unusual lethargy when she observed a photo
taken of him on Christmas day, December 25, 2012. Tr. 83. Petitioner testified that I.H. looked
“exhausted “in this Christmas photograph. Id. Though petitioner submitted this picture and
others, the photographs were not dated or date stamped. Pet. Ex. 61 at 17. Shortly after
Christmas, during the December-January 2012-2013 school holiday break, I.H.’s grandmother
cared for I.H. while petitioner worked, but petitioner did not recall the grandmother stating that
I.H. was notably tired while in her care. Tr. 86.
Second, petitioner testified that on January 23, 2013, she brought I.H. to a professional
basketball game between the Grizzlies and the Lakers in an attempt to get her son “more
involved,” because she thought that her son’s lethargy could be the result of being involved in
too few activities. Tr. 71-72. According to petitioner, I.H. fell asleep within 20 minutes of
arriving at the basketball game. Tr. 71. When the undersigned asked petitioner to estimate how
long before the date of the basketball game I.H. had been unusually sleepy, petitioner stated that
it had been at least “three weeks or so” (approximately January 2, 2013). Tr. 83.
Finally, petitioner testified that on February 23, 2013, she brought I.H. to the Shrine
Circus. Tr. 45, 91. The circus “was another [of petitioner’s] attempt[s] . . . like the basketball
game . . .” to get I.H. more involved in outside activities, but I.H. fell asleep during the circus.
Tr. 70-71.
Additionally, petitioner attempted to clarify some of the medical record notations
regarding the onset date of I.H.’s symptoms. Petitioner confirmed that she brought I.H. to Dr.
Naida’s office on February 15, 2013. Tr. 31. However, while the medical records from that visit
indicate that the visit was a well-child visit, petitioner insisted that she brought I.H. to Dr. Naida
that day to “ask [the doctor] about [I.H.’s] sleeping habits.” Tr. 31; Pet. Ex. 12 at 18. Petitioner
said that the reason the nurse made a note of I.H.’s nighttime and daytime sleep habits during
this visit was because I.H. had started sleeping “way more” than usual. Tr. 33. Petitioner also
stated that she began giving I.H. multivitamins to address his sleepiness. Tr. 32.
Regarding the medical records from I.H.’s March 19, 2013 visit with Dr. Schoumacher,
which state that I.H.’s condition had worsened over the past year, petitioner testified she meant
that I.H. had not had any symptoms before January 2013. Tr. 57.
Petitioner testified that while some of the medical records indicate that I.H. exhibited
narcolepsy symptoms for one month, she told the doctors that his symptoms had occurred for “at
least a month.” Tr. 36. Petitioner also clarified that the doctors’ notations of “1/2” months
meant one to two months, not a half month, because that is how petitioner states she would have
characterized the duration of I.H.’s symptoms. Tr. 44.
While the medical records from I.H.’s visit with Dr. Naida on March 6, 2013, indicate
that petitioner brought I.H. to the doctor that day because the school had contacted petitioner to
tell her that I.H. had been falling asleep, petitioner testified that she was the one that contacted
the school to notify them that she was taking I.H. out of school to follow up with Dr. Naida. Tr.
40.
7

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 8 of 9
V. Evaluation of the Evidence
Based on an evaluation of the evidence as a whole, the undersigned finds that I.H.’s
symptoms began between January 6 and 8, 2013, and progressively worsened thereafter. I.H.’s
medical records and petitioner’s testimony and affidavit are not necessarily contradictory, given
the insidious nature of the onset of I.H.’s illness. But as petitioner testified, she did not realize
that her son was ill until his fatigue and sleepiness persisted for some time, and then it was
difficult for her to accurately recall when the first symptoms began. Petitioner’s affidavit,
testimony, the petition, and a number of the medical records support the undersigned’s finding
that the onset date was early-to-mid January 2013.
Dr. Schoumacher, the sleep specialist who diagnosed I.H. with narcolepsy and cataplexy,
first recorded that I.H.’s symptoms began two months prior to I.H.’s first visit with him on
March 8, 2013. Pet. Ex. 7 at 19. This places the onset date at January 8, 2013. Again, on March
12 and 19, 2013, Dr. Schoumacher noted that I.H. had recently been assessed with a two month
history of symptoms. Pet. Ex. 9 at 14; Pet. Ex. 9 at 11. Thus, Dr. Schoumacher consistently
documented an onset date of I.H.’s symptoms as January 8, 2013. Similarly, Dr. Naida, I.H.’s
primary care physician, recorded that I.H.’s symptoms began on January 6, 2013. Pet. Ex. 12 at
22 (noting that I.H.’s symptoms started two months prior to I.H.’s visit with Dr. Naida on March
6, 2013). While the medical records set forth a number of potential onset dates, I.H.’s primary
care physician, Dr. Naida, and his sleep specialist, Dr. Schoumacher, both documented a two
month duration of symptoms, which puts the onset of symptoms occurring from January 6-8,
2013. Presumably, Dr. Schoumacher, due to his expertise on sleep disorders, was careful to take
and document an accurate history. Dr. Naida, as the child’s treating pediatrician, knew the child
and his mother, and his history is also presumed to be reliable.
Petitioner’s testimony also supports Dr. Schoumacher and Dr. Naida’s onset dates as
between January 6 and 8, 2013. Petitioner testified that she brought I.H. to the professional
basketball game on January 23, 2013. Petitioner testified that she recalled that I.H. had shown
symptoms of daytime sleepiness approximately three weeks prior to this event, placing the onset
date in early January 2013, consistent with the history taken by Dr. Schoumacher and Dr. Naida.
Tr. 83.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the onset of I.H.’s injury began between January
6 and January 8, 2013.
VI. Conclusion
The undersigned finds that the onset date of I.H.’s injuries began between January 6 and
January 8, 2013. The respondent is ORDERED to file a status report by Friday, August 14,
2015, stating how she would like to proceed.
8

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 45 Filed 08/04/15 Page 9 of 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Special Master
9

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00766-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-03-25
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/04/2016) regarding 59 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlf) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 63 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: March 4, 2016
Case No. 13-766V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
I.H., a minor, by his mother *
ALESKIS BROWN, * Chief Special Master Dorsey
*
Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages;
* Influenza (“flu”) Vaccine;
v. * Narcolepsy; Cataplexy; Hypersomnia;
* Lack of Coordination/Ataxia.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren, et al., P.C., Memphis, TN, for petitioner.
Darryl R. Wishard, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
DECISION1
On October 2, 2013, Aleskis Brown (“petitioner”) filed a petition on behalf of her minor
son, I.H., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -
34 (2012). Petitioner alleges that I.H. developed narcolepsy, cataplexy, hypersomnia, lack of
coordination/ataxia, and other neurologic and physical impairments as a result of receiving the
influenza (“flu”) vaccination on December 10, 2012. Petition at 1. The undersigned determined
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the undersigned’s action in this case,
the undersigned intends to post this ruling 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 (2012)). As provided by
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).
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,
42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All citations in this decision
to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa.

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 63 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 8
that the onset of petitioner’s condition began between January 6 and 8, 2013. See Ruling
Regarding Findings of Fact dated August 4, 2015, (ECF No. 45).
On March 4, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation in which they stated that a decision
should be entered awarding compensation.
Respondent denies that the influenza vaccine caused I.H.’s alleged injuries.
Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. The
undersigned finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in
awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
A lump sum in the amount of $550,000.00, in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, Aleskis Brown, as guardian of I.H.’s estate. This amount represents compensation
for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Stipulation dated March
4, 2016, (ECF No. 58) at ¶ 8.
The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation.
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/ Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of
notice renouncing the right to seek review.

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 63 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
I.I I.. a minor. by his mother )
ALESKI BROW . )
)
Petitioner. ) o. 13-766V ECF
)
V. ) Chief pecial Master Dorsey
)
ECRETARY OF HEAL TH )
A D HUMA SERVICES. )
)
Respondent. )
- - --------- )
STIPULATION
The partie hereby stipulate to the following matters:
I. Petitioner. Alcskis Brown. filed a petition for vaccine compensation on behalfof her
on. I H. under the ational Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U. .C. § 300aa-I 0 to 34
(the ··vaccine Program .. ). The petition eeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to IH·s
receipt of the influenza (""flu .. ) vaccine. which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the
·T able. . ). 42 C.F.R. § I 00.3(a).
2. IH received the flu vaccine on December I 0. 2012.
3. The vaccine was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that. as a re ult of receiving the vaccine. IH suffered from
narcolepsy. cataplexy. hyper omnia. lack of coordination/ataxia. and neurologic and/or other
physical impairments. and that II I experienced the residual effect of these injuries for more than
six months.
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 63 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 8
for damages as a result of the alleged injury.
6. Respondent denies that the vaccines caused or significantly aggravated I H · s al Ieged
medical condition and injuries. any of hi ongoing symptoms. or any other injury.
7. Maintaining their above-stated positions. the parties nevertheless now agree that the
issues bet\\een them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the
compensation described in paragraph 8 ol"this Stipulation.
8. As soon as practicable after an entry ofjudgmcnt renecting a decision consistent
with the terms of this Stipulation. and after petitioner has filed an election to receive
compensation pursuant to 42 U ..C . ~ 300aa-2 I (a)( I). the Secretary of Health and I luman
Services will issue the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of$550.000.00. in the form of a check payable to petitioner as
guardian of 11-l"s estate.
The above amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42
*
U.S.C. 300aa-15(a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case. and
after petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to
*
42 U .S.C. 300aa-2 I (a)( I). and an application. the parties wi 11 submit to further proceed in gs
before the special master to award reasonable attorneys· fee and costs incurred in proceeding
upon this petition.
I 0. Petitioner and her attorney represent that compensation to be provided pursuant to
this Stipulation i not for any items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
*
under 42 U .S.C. 300aa-I 5(g). to the extent that payment has been made or can rca onably be
expected to be made under any State compensation programs, insurance policies. Federal or
2

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 63 Filed 03/25/16 Page 5 of 8
late health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
§ 1396 et seq.)). or by entities that provide health services on a pre-paid basis.
11. Payments made pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Stipulation. and any amount
awarded pursuant to paragraph 9 of this tipulation. will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-15(i). subject to the availability orsufficient statutory funds.
12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that. except for any award
for attorneys· lees and litigation costs. the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be
used solely for the benefit of I 1-1. as contemplated by a trict construction of 42 U. .C.
§ 300aa-l 5(a) and (d). and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I 5(g) and (h).
13. Petitioner represents that she pre ently is. or within 90 days of the date of
judgment will become, duly authorized to serve as guardian of 11-l"s estate under the laws
of the State of Tennessee. No payments pursuant to this tipulation shall be made
until petitioner provides the ecretary with documentation establishing her appointment as
guardian of I H · s estate. Ir petitioner is not authorized by a court of competent
juri diction to serve as guardian of the estate of IH at the time a payment pursuant to this
Stipulation is to be made. any such payment shall be paid to the party or parties appointed by a
court of competent jurisdiction to serve a guardian of the estate of I H upon submission of
written documentation of such appointment to the Secretary.
14. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9. petitioner. in her
individual capacity. as legal representative of IH. and on behalf of her elf. IH, and their heirs.
executors. administrators. successors or assigns. docs forever irrevocably and unconditionally
release. acquit and discharge the United tates and the ecretary or Health and Human Services
from any and all actions. causes of action (including agreements. judgments. claims, damages,
3

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 63 Filed 03/25/16 Page 6 of 8
loss of services. expenses and al I demands of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought.
could have been brought. or could be timely brought in the Court of Federal Claims. under the
ational Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I 0 et seq .. on account of. or
in any way growing out of: any and al I known or unknown. suspected or unsuspected personal
injuries to or death of IH resulting from. or alleged to have resulted from. the vaccines
administered on December I 0. 2012. as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine
compensation !iled on or about October 2. 2013. in the United States Court of Federal Claims as
petition No. 13-766V.
15. If IH should die prior to entry of judgment. this agreement shall be voidable upon
proper notice to the Court on behal r of either or both of the parties.
16. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms
of this tipulation or if the Court of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in conformity with a
decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then the parties·
settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
17. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and
damages claimed under the ational Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. as amended, except
as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the
parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated
and clearly agreed to. The parties further agree and understand that the award described in this
stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties· respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages. and further. that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the
items of compensation sought. is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
18. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
4

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 63 Filed 03/25/16 Page 7 of 8
Secretary of Health and Human ervices that the vaccines either caused or significantly
aggravated IH"s alleged medical condition or any other injury.
19. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's
heirs. executors. administrators. successors. and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
5

Case 1:13-vv-00766-UNJ Document 63 Filed 03/25/16 Page 8 of 8
<00:90-1W8) wda£:
~ g~oG1~01£0
Rcspoctfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
AITORNRY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
PETITJONER:
OF 11lE AITORNEY GENERAL:
Jl# ~~
!£~~-~
~
MICHAEL G:MCiARE VINCENT J. MA ANOSKl
Blaclc McLaren Jones Ryllmd & Griff;/~· Deputy Director
530 Oak Court Drive, Suite 360 Torn Branch
Memphil, TN 38117 Civil Division
(901) 762--0535 U.S. Dcpa.rtmoot of Jwtice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Fmnklin Station
W ashiu.gton, DC 2Q044.0146
AUTHORIZ..ED REPRESENTATIVE ATTORNEY OF RECORl> FOR
OFTHESECRETARYOFHEALTB
RESPONDENT:
AND HUMAN SK CES:
DARRYL R. WISHARD
Acting Director, Division of Injury Smiior Trial Attorney
Compensation ProiJ1UDB (DlcP) Tot1s Bnmch
Healthcare Systems Bureau Civil Division
U.S. Departtncut of Health and U.S. Department of Justice
Human Servicea P.O. Sox 146
5600 Fillher& Lane Benjamin Franklin Station
Padc.Ulwn Building, Mail Stop 08Nl46B W11shingl0n. DC 20044--0146
Rockville. MD 20857 {202) 616-4357
+lr
1
h
fa
Doted'
l
6
d 5Z: t> 199E 105