VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00725
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00725
Petitioner: Karen Sullivan
Filed: 2014-08-11
Decided: 2015-11-30
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-09-06
Condition: ulnar neuropathy and bilateral upper extremity paresthesia
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Karen Sullivan filed a petition on August 11, 2014, alleging that an influenza vaccine received on September 6, 2013, caused her to suffer ulnar neuropathy and bilateral upper extremity paresthesia. Respondent filed a report on January 5, 2015, stating that the case was not appropriate for compensation due to insufficient evidence. On September 16, 2015, Ms. Sullivan moved to dismiss her own petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. She understood that a dismissal would result in a judgment against her and end all rights in the Vaccine Program. Respondent did not oppose the motion. The Chief Special Master 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 the petitioner allege one. Furthermore, the record lacked a medical expert's opinion or other persuasive evidence indicating the injuries were vaccine-caused. Because the medical records were insufficient and no medical opinion was offered, the petition was dismissed for insufficient proof. Subsequently, on November 5, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for attorney fees and costs. Special Master Roth found the petition was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis and awarded $15,550.00 in attorney fees and costs, payable jointly to Ms. Sullivan and her counsel.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00725-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-10-09
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/18/2015) regarding 23 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (tlf) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00725-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: September 18, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
KAREN SULLIVAN, * No. 14-725V
*
Petitioner, * Chief Special Master Dorsey
v. *
* Dismissal; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Ulnar Neuropathy; Bilateral Upper
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Extremity Paresthesia
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA for petitioner.
Lynn E. Ricciardella, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION1
On August 11, 2014, Karen Sullivan (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleged that as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on
September 6, 2013, she suffered ulnar neuropathy and bilateral upper extremity paresthesia.
Petition at Preamble.
Respondent filed her Rule 4 report on January 5, 2015, stating that this case was not
appropriate for compensation. Respondent stated that petitioner failed to provide preponderant
evidence in support of the petition for compensation, and compensation under the Act for
petitioner’s injuries must be denied.
On September 16, 2015, petitioner moved for a decision dismissing her petition. In the
motion, petitioner states that “[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting the case have
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b),
petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies
the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for
redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified
material fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public
access.
1

Case 1:14-vv-00725-UNJ Document 24 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2
demonstrated to petitioner that she will be unable to prove she is entitled to compensation in the
Vaccine Program.” Motion for Dismissal at ¶ 1. Petitioner states that she understands that a
decision by the Special Master will result in a judgment against her, and that such a judgment
will end all rights in the Vaccine Program. Id. at ¶ 3. Respondent did not file a response to
petitioner’s motion.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that she
suffered a “Table Injury”—i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding
to her vaccination, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually caused by a vaccine. See §§
300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of the record did not uncover any
evidence that the petitioner suffered a “Table Injury,” nor does petitioner allege that she suffered
a Table injury. Further, the record does not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other
persuasive evidence indicating that petitioner’s injuries were caused by a vaccination.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based solely on
the petitioner’s claims. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical records or by
the opinion of a competent physician. § 300aa-13(a)(1). In this case, because the medical
records are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be
offered in support. Petitioner, however, has not offered a medical expert opinion.
Therefore, the only alternative remains to DENY this petition. Thus, this case is
dismissed for insufficient proof. In the absence of a motion for review, the Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00725-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-11-30
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/5/2015) regarding 30 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (jdm) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00725-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: November 5, 2015
No. 14-725V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
KAREN SULLIVAN, *
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Roth
v. *
* Attorney Fees and Costs
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA for petitioner.
Lynn E. Ricciardella, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1
Roth, Special Master:
In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 Chief Special
Master Dorsey issued a decision on September 18, 2015 that dismissed petitioner’s case for
insufficient proof. On November 5, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for attorney fees and
costs. The stipulation indicates that respondent does not object to the amount petitioner is
requesting. Additionally, pursuant to General Order #9, the stipulation notes that petitioner
incurred no personal litigation costs.
I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis
for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to 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)). In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree
that the identified material fits within this definition, I will delete such material from public access.
2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2012).
1

Case 1:14-vv-00725-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, I hereby award the total $15,550.003 in the form of a check payable jointly to
petitioner and petitioner’s counsel of record, Paul R. Brazil, for petitioner’s attorney fees
and costs.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
3 This amount is intended to cover all legal expenses incurred in this matter. This award encompasses all charges by
the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for legal services rendered. Furthermore, 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or collecting fees (including costs) that would be in addition to
the amount awarded herein. See generally Beck v. Sec’y, HHS, 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).
4 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. See
Vaccine Rule 11(a).
2