VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00843
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00843
Petitioner: Nicole Previti
Filed: 2014-09-11
Decided: 2016-09-12
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2012-04-26
Condition: brachial neuritis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 165000

AI-assisted case summary:
On September 11, 2014, Nicole Previti filed a Vaccine Program petition after receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on April 26, 2012. She alleged that the Tdap vaccination caused brachial neuritis and that residual effects lasted more than six months.

The public decision was entered on a joint stipulation and does not describe onset, diagnostic testing, treatment, or functional limitations in narrative form. It does show that respondent denied that Previti's brachial neuritis and residual effects were caused in fact by the Tdap vaccine, and also denied that the vaccine caused any other injury or her current condition.

The parties filed a joint stipulation on September 12, 2016. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey adopted it that day. Previti was awarded a $165,000.00 lump sum, payable to her, representing first-year life care expenses of $21,157.26 and combined lost earnings, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses of $143,842.74. She was also awarded an amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in the stipulation. Previti was represented by William E. Cochran, Jr. of Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, PC.

Theory of causation field:
Tdap vaccine (April 26, 2012) alleged to cause brachial neuritis with residual effects more than six months. COMPENSATED by joint stipulation. Respondent denied causation-in-fact for brachial neuritis/residual effects and denied any other vaccine-caused injury/current condition; public stipulation contains limited clinical facts. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey adopted the stipulation on September 12, 2016. Award: $165,000.00 lump sum ($21,157.26 first-year life care + $143,842.74 combined lost earnings/pain and suffering/past unreimbursable expenses) plus amount sufficient to purchase annuity. Attorney: William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, PC, Memphis, TN.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00843-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-01-22
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/15/2014) regarding 17 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (Signed by Chief Special Master Denise Kathryn Vowell.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-843V
Filed: December 15, 2014
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NICOLE PREVITI, *
*
Petitioner, * Finding of fact; Proof of vaccination
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
William E. Cochran, Jr., Esq., Black McClaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis,
TN, for petitioner.
Adriana Ruth Teitel, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
1
ORDER and RULING ON FACTS
Vowell, Special Master:
On September 11, 2014, Nicole Previti [“petitioner”] filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C.
§300aa-10, et seq, [the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges she suffered
brachial neuritis following the administration of the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular
pertussis [“TDaP”] vaccine on April 26, 2012. (See Petition at 1.) Petitioner alleges that
her injury is a Table injury,2 alleging in the alternative that it was “caused-in-fact” by her
vaccination. (Id.) The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, it will be
posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). In accordance with Vaccine Rule
18(b), petitioners have 14 days to identify and move to redact 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 redact such material from public access.
2 A “Table” injury is an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 C.F.R. § 100.3, corresponding to the
vaccine received within the time frame specified.

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 4
I. Procedural History
A telephonic status conference was held on October 9, 2014. William Cochran
appeared on behalf of petitioner, and Adriana Teitel appeared on behalf of respondent.
(See Order, issued October 9, 2014 (ECF No. 10), at 1.) Daniel Horner appeared on
my behalf as the OSM staff attorney managing this case. During the call, respondent’s
counsel noted that respondent had not at that time completed a review of this case, but
noted concern regarding the lack of documentation in the medical records indicating in
which arm the implicated vaccine was administered. (Id.) Petitioner filed records in this
case showing that the TDaP vaccine had been administered during the course of her
hospitalization, but these records did not identify the injection site. (Ex. 1, p. 115.)
Petitioner was given 30 days, until November 10, 2014, to supplement the record
regarding further proof of vaccination and respondent was ordered to file a status report
30 days after that, no later than December 10, 2014, indicating respondent’s position
regarding settlement negotiations. 3 (Id.)
On November 26, 2014, petitioner filed an affidavit indicating that the hospital
where she received the implicated vaccination kept no further proof of vaccination
beyond what had already been filed. (See Ex. 14, at 1.) In that same affidavit, petitioner
described the circumstances of her vaccination in greater detail and explained the basis
of her recollection. (Ex. 14, pp. 2-3.) Petitioner also filed two photographs in further
corroboration of her account. (Exs. 15, 16.) Petitioner also referred back to a previously
filed affidavit and photograph that she indicated further support her recollection. (See
Exs. 11, 12.)
On December 8, 2014, respondent filed a status report indicating that
“respondent’s position on how she wishes to proceed is dependent on the Court’s
factual finding regarding in which shoulder petitioner’s April 26, 2012 Tdap vaccination
was administered. If it is determined that the vaccine was administered in her right
shoulder, respondent believes this case would be appropriate for settlement
negotiations.” (See ECF No. 14, p. 1.) Respondent’s status report, however, did not
discuss the statutory qualification and aids to interpretation which indicate that with
regard to brachial neuritis “[t]he neuritis, or plexopathy, may be present on the same
side as or the opposite side of the injection.” (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14(b) as amended by
42 CFR § 100.3.)
In an order dated December 9, 2014, I indicated that I was prepared to make a
fact finding if necessary, but required respondent to make a motion for a finding of fact
and to “explicitly address the need for such ruling” in light of the language of the
qualification and aids to interpretation. (See Order, issued December 9, 2014 (ECF No.
3 A motion for an enlargement of time was subsequently filed on November 10, 2014, by petitioner (ECF
No. 11), and granted on November 12, 2014. (See Order, issued November 12, 2014 (Non-PDF).)
Petitioner’s deadline was extended to December 10, 2014, and respondent’s deadline to January 9, 2015.
(Id.)

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/22/15 Page 3 of 4
15), p. 2.) On December 10, 2014, respondent made a motion “for a factual finding
regarding administration of Petitioner’s Tdap vaccine.”4 (ECF No. 16.)
Respondent’s motion explained that the factual ruling indicating in which arm
petitioner received her vaccination is necessary, because the record includes
statements by petitioner indicating that she experienced “bearable” pain soon after the
vaccination. (See ECF No. 16, p. 3.) In respondent’s view of the case, this “bearable”
pain might be attributed to a local site reaction if the vaccine is determined to have been
given in the right shoulder. (ECF No. 16, pp. 3-4.) Absent such a finding, respondent
argues that petitioner’s initial “bearable” right shoulder pain would not be vaccine-
caused. According to respondent, this distinction changes the calculus of onset and
therefore bears on the likelihood that petitioner’s injury was vaccine caused. (Id.) In
light of respondent’s explanation, I conclude that a fact ruling resolving the
administration site of the implicated vaccination is appropriate.5
II. Factual Finding
On April 24, 2012, Petitioner was admitted to the Oakwood South Shore Medical
Center for a cesarean section. (Ex. 1, p. 96.) Petitioner remained hospitalized until
being discharged on April 26, 2012. On April 26, 2012, prior to leaving the hospital,
petitioner was administered a TDaP vaccination. (Ex. 1, p. 115.) The record indicates
that the vaccine was administered as scheduled at 12:28 pm6, but does not indicate the
injection site. (Id.) Petitioner has averred, however, that she received the vaccination in
her right shoulder. (Ex. 12, p. 1.) Petitioner also averred that she contacted Oakwood
South Shore Medical Center twice, in August and October or 2014, to obtain any
additional record of her TDaP vaccination. (Ex. 14, p. 1.) Petitioner swears in her
affidavit not only that the hospital denied having any additional records, but also that
she was specifically told that the hospital did not document in which arm it administered
her vaccination. (Id.)
Significantly, petitioner also submitted photographic evidence tending to show
that she likely received her vaccination in her right shoulder. Specifically, petitioner filed
as Exhibit 11, pictures of her right arm illustrating a “pea sized” lump which she swears,
in an affidavit filed as Exhibit 12, developed at the site of vaccine administration. (Ex 12,
4 In her motion, respondent indicates that she is “renewing her request for a factual finding.” (ECF No. 16,
p. 4.) Actually, no request for a factual finding was explicitly made in the status report. The status report
advised the court that respondent’s position is dependent upon a fact finding, but did not indicate that a
fact finding was requested.
5 I stress that this ruling pertains only to the question of whether petitioner’s vaccination was administered
in her right arm and does not address the onset of her injury. Respondent’s theory that petitioner’s initial
shoulder pain was a vaccine site reaction is discussed only because it substantiates respondent’s request
for the fact ruling in this case at this time, despite the fact that petitioner is alleging brachial neuritis. I am
not deciding whether the location of petitioner’s vaccination bears the significance respondent suggests.
6 Respondent contends the administration was likely earlier in the day as petitioner signed her discharge
papers at 12:15pm that day. (See ECF No. 16, p. 2, citing Ex. 1, p. 101.) This ruling does not address the
specific timing of Petitioner’s TDaP vaccination.

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 19 Filed 01/22/15 Page 4 of 4
p. 1.) In addition, petitioner also filed a photograph of herself in her hospital bed. (Ex.
15.) In this picture, petitioner’s left arm is clearly visible, and, as petitioner notes in her
accompanying affidavit, there is no visible sign of any vaccination into her left arm. (Ex.
14, p. 2.) Although the photograph is not date stamped, petitioner explained that she
knows the photograph to have been taken post-vaccination, because she recalls that
she received the vaccination prior to showering that day and is wearing the clothing she
recalls having put on for the first time after her shower. (Id.)
Moreover, petitioner also persuasively bolsters her recollection by recalling the
additional detail that the door to the hospital room was on the right side of her bed and
her baby’s bassinet adjacent to the left side of her bed, away from the door. (Id.) She
argues it is unlikely that hospital staff would have walked around the bed only to have to
reach over the bassinet to administer the vaccination. (Id.)
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and in light of the significant
detail provided by petitioner, I find that petitioner received a TDaP vaccine in her
right shoulder on April 26, 2012.
III. Order
In her status report of December 8, 2014, respondent’s counsel indicated that “[i]f
it is determined that the vaccine was administered in her right shoulder, respondent
believes this case would be appropriate for settlement negotiations.” (ECF No. 14, p.
1.) That finding has been made. Therefore, the parties shall file a joint status
report by no later than January 16, 2015, updating the court on the progress of
their settlement negotiations. The status report shall indicate if a demand has
been served, and if not, when petitioner expects to serve a demand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise K. Vowell
Denise K. Vowell
Chief Special Master

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00843-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-11-07
Pages: 11
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/12/2016) regarding 56 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 11
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-843V
Filed: September 12, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NICOLE PREVITI, *
*
Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v. * Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis;
* Tdap: Brachial neuritis;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
William E. Cochran, Jr., Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, PC, Memphis, TN, for
petitioner.
Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On September 11, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered brachial neuritis as a result of her
April 26, 2012 tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination. Petition at 1;
Stipulation, filed September 12, 2016, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that she
experienced the residual effects of her injury for more than six months and that there
has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her
condition. Petition at 6; Stipulation at ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner’s
brachial neuritis and its residual effects were caused-in-fact by her Tdap vaccine.
Respondent further denies that the vaccine caused petitioner any other injury or her
current condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to 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 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to
identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 11
Nevertheless, on September 12, 2016, the parties filed the attached joint
stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. 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 of $165,000.00, which amount represents compensation
for first year life care expenses ($21,157.26) and combined lost
earnings, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses
($143,842.74), in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation
at ¶ 8(a); and
• An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in
paragraph 10 of the joint stipulation. Stipulation, ¶ 8(b).
This represents compensation for all damages that would be available under §
300aa-15(a).
The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.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 can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 11

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 11

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 11

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 6 of 11

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 7 of 11

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 8 of 11

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 9 of 11

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 10 of 11

Case 1:14-vv-00843-UNJ Document 60 Filed 11/07/16 Page 11 of 11