VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00329
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00329
Petitioner: S.S.
Filed: 2015-04-15
Decided: 2016-08-25
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2012-08-08
Condition: brachial plexus neuritis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 56803

AI-assisted case summary:
On April 15, 2015, Barbara Sweat filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, S.S., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleged that S.S. developed brachial plexus neuritis, also known as Parsonage-Turner syndrome, as a result of receiving tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) and hepatitis A vaccinations on August 8, 2012, and experienced residual effects for more than six months. The respondent denied that the vaccines caused S.S.'s injury or condition. However, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on April 13, 2015. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as his decision. The initial stipulation awarded S.S. a lump sum of $50,000.00 for all damages, payable to Petitioner as guardian/conservator of S.S.'s estate. This amount represented compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). On May 14, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation regarding attorney's fees and costs, agreeing that Petitioner should receive a total of $8,984.83. Of this amount, $8,946.76 was for attorneys' fees and costs for the Disparti Law Group, PA, and $38.07 was for out-of-pocket costs incurred by Petitioner. Special Master Corcoran approved this amount as reasonable in a decision dated August 26, 2015. Judgment was entered on June 19, 2015. Subsequently, on June 16, 2016, Petitioner sought relief from the fees judgment, requesting supplemental fees and costs related to the establishment of guardianship, which was contemplated in the original damages stipulation. Petitioner requested an additional $1,903.00 for these fees and costs. The respondent stated no objection to this supplemental request. Special Master Corcoran found that Petitioner had established a basis for revising the Fees Judgment under RCFC 60(b)(1) due to mistake or inadvertence in not including these costs in the original application. He granted the motion, awarding an additional $1,903.00 in attorney's fees and costs, payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel. The total compensation awarded to S.S. was $56,803.00 ($50,000.00 for damages plus $8,984.83 and $1,903.00 for fees and costs). Petitioner's counsel was Lawrence Disparti of Disparti Law Group, PA. Respondent's counsel was Amy Kokot of the U.S. Department of Justice. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran presided over the case.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner alleged that S.S. developed brachial plexus neuritis (Parsonage-Turner syndrome) as a result of receiving Tdap and hepatitis A vaccinations on August 8, 2012. The respondent denied causation. The parties settled the case via stipulation, agreeing to an award of $50,000.00 for damages, $8,946.76 for attorney's fees and costs for Disparti Law Group, PA, $38.07 for Petitioner's out-of-pocket costs, and an additional $1,903.00 for guardianship-related fees and costs. The total award was $56,803.00. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran approved the stipulations. The specific medical mechanism or expert testimony regarding causation was not detailed in the provided public decisions, as the case was resolved by stipulation. The theory of causation is based on the petitioner's allegation, which was not litigated to a decision on the merits.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00329-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-05-06
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/15/2015) regarding 24 DECISION Stipulation Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-329V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
BARBARA SWEAT, * Filed: April 15, 2015
on behalf of S.S., a minor, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
Petitioner, * Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular
* Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine;
v. * Hepatitis A Vaccine; Brachial
* Plexus Neuritis
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lawrence Disparti, Disparti Law Group, PA, Holiday, FL, for Petitioner.
Amy Kokot, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On April 21, 2014, Barbara Sweat filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, S.S., seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine
Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that S.S. developed a brachial plexus neuritis, also known as
Parsonage-Turner syndrome, as a result of receiving the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) and hepatitis A vaccinations on August 8, 2012. Petitioner further alleges that S.S.’s
experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
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 fourteen (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 Vaccine 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. § 300aa-10 through 34 (2006)) [hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the
Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 8
Respondent denies that S.S.’s vaccines caused her to suffer brachial plexus neuritis and/or
any other injury or her current condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-
stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed April 13, 2015) that 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 $50,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner as
guardian/conservator of S.S.’s estate.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under 42 U.S.C. ' 300aa-15(a).
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amounts 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 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/06/15 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/06/15 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 25 Filed 05/06/15 Page 8 of 8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00329-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-06-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/14/2015) regarding 29 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-329V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
BARBARA SWEAT, on behalf of S.S., a minor, *
* Filed: May 14, 2015
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lawrence Joseph Disparti, Holiday, FL, for Petitioner
Amy Paula Kokot, Washington, DC, for Respondent
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On April 21, 2014, Barbara Sweat filed a petition on behalf of S.S., a minor, seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (Athe Vaccine
Program@). On April 13, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded
to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable
and granting Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation.
On May 14, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in
regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner should receive a
total amount of $8,984.83 for fees and costs. Of that amount, $8.946.76 is for attorneys’ fees and
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision 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 posted 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.)

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 2
costs for the Disparti Law Group, PA, and $38.07 is for out-of-pocket costs incurred by
Petitioner, (as represented by Petitioner’s counsel in compliance with General Order #9).
I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award should be made in the form of:
• a check in the amount of $8,946.76 payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s
counsel, Lawrence J. Disparti, Esq.; and
• an additional check in the amount of $38.07 payable to Petitioner.
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.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their
right to seek review.

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00329-2
Date issued/filed: 2016-08-25
Pages: 3
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/16/2016) Regarding 36 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 3
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-329V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
BARBARA SWEAT, on behalf of S.S., a minor, *
* Filed: June 16, 2016
Petitioner, *
* Attorney’s Fees and Costs;
v. * Motion for Relief from Judgment;
* RCFC 60(b).
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lawrence Joseph Disparti, Disparti Law Group, PA , Holiday, FL, for Petitioner.
Amy Paula Kokot, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION GRANTING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT1
On April 21, 2014, Barbara Sweat filed a petition on behalf of her minor child, S.S., seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine
Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that S.S. developed a brachial plexus neuritis, also known as
Parsonage-Turner syndrome, as a result of receiving the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
(“Tdap”) and hepatitis A vaccinations. ECF No. 1. The parties subsequently filed a stipulation on
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, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). 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 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.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.
1

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 3
April 13, 2015 (ECF No. 23), detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner, which served as the
basis for my decision awarding damages dated April 15, 2015 (ECF No. 24). The parties later filed
a stipulation regarding attorney’s fees and costs on May 14, 2015 (ECF No. 28), which I adopted
as my fees decision dated August 26, 2015 (ECF No. 29), and was reduced to judgment on June
19, 2015 (ECF No. 33).
Petitioner has now informed me that she incurred additional fees and costs for the
establishment of guardianship in this claim that were not accounted for in her May 6, 2015, Motion
for Attorney Fees and Costs. 3 Because it was contemplated by the parties in the damages
stipulation that a guardianship proceeding would be initiated as part of the claim, these costs are
reasonable and were anticipated by the parties.
Based on the above, Petitioner now moves for relief from the Fees Judgment. Petitioner is
requesting supplemental fees and cost related the guardianship proceeding in the amount of
$1,903.00. Respondent has represented that she has no objection to the additional fees and costs
requested.
Under Vaccine Rule 36, Appendix B, RCFC (the “Vaccine Rules”), a party may seek relief
from judgment pursuant to RCFC 60. Ms. Sweat’s motion invokes Rule 60(b), which delineates
five specific circumstances for relief, plus a catch-all permitting a party to obtain modification of
a decision based upon “any other reason that justifies relief.” RCFC 60(b).
Here, I find that Petitioner has establish a basis for revising the Fees Judgment under Rule
60(b). I find Rule 60(b)(1), which permits relief on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect,” applicable to the additional costs associated with the guardianship
proceeding. See RCFC 60(b)(1). The fees associated with the guardianship proceeding were not
included in the original application as a result of a mistake or inadvertence, as the parties
stipulation clearly contemplated the creation of a guardianship. Furthermore, I find that the Rule
60(b) requirement that relief may only be obtained by motion and a showing of “just terms” has
been satisfied in this case. RCFC 60(b).
The motion does not challenge or dispute the underlying merits of the prior fee decisions.
The requested correction will merely increase the size of the Fees Judgment to reflect additional
work performed on this case. The motion is also unopposed by Respondent, further underscoring
3 Petitioner originally filed an unopposed motion for leave to file for attorney’s fees and costs outside of the timeframe
allowed by statute, dated April 4, 2016. ECF No. 34. However, during a status conference on May 23, 2016, I
instructed the parties that this motion should be stricken, and instead a motion for relief from the judgment should be
filed. Petitioner did so on June 7, 2016. ECF No. 35. Accordingly, I will strike Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for
Leave to file Attached Motion for Fees and Costs Out of Time (ECF No. 34) as improperly filed.
2

Case 1:14-vv-00329-UNJ Document 38 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 3
the extent to which it is the view of the parties that the error in question, while worthy of correction,
is substantively minor. Such circumstances establish a sound basis for revising the Fees Judgment
under Rule 60(b).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, (1) the Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed to strike Petitioner’s
Unopposed Motion for Leave to file Attached Motion for Fees and Costs Out of Time (ECF
No. 34), as improperly filed, and (2) Petitioner is awarded an additional $1,903.00 in
attorney’s fees and costs in this action in the form of a check made payable jointly to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Disparti Law Group, PA. 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 these terms.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing their
right to seek review.
3