VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01018
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01018
Petitioner: John Summers
Filed: 2015-06-17
Decided: 2015-09-22
Vaccine: hepatitis A and hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 2014-02-14
Condition: reactive arthritis, myalgia and arthralgia
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
John Summers filed a petition on June 17, 2015, alleging that the hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines he received on February 14, 2014, caused him to develop reactive arthritis, myalgia, and arthralgia. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a report on February 3, 2015, indicating that the case was not appropriate for compensation, arguing that the petitioner failed to offer a scientific or medical theory establishing a causal link between the vaccines and his alleged conditions, and also failed to show a logical sequence of cause and effect. Subsequently, Mr. Summers filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science supporting his case demonstrated he would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The court found that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish a Table Injury or that the alleged injury was caused by the vaccination, and that the petitioner himself acknowledged possessing no contrary evidence. Therefore, the case was dismissed for insufficient proof on September 22, 2015. A subsequent decision on September 22, 2015, approved a stipulation for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $16,500.00, payable jointly to the petitioner and his counsel.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01018-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-07-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/17/2015) regarding 17 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01018-UNJ Document 19 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1018V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JOHN SUMMERS, * Filed: June 17, 2015
*
Petitioner, * Petitioner’s Motion for a Decision
v. * Dismissing the Petition; Vaccine Act
* Entitlement; Denial Without Hearing
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul R. Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Camille Collett, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION DISMISSING CASE1
On October 20, 2014, John Summers filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that
the hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines administered to him on February 14, 2014 caused him to
develop reactive arthritis, myalgia and arthralgia, and that these illnesses ultimately continue to
this day. See Pet. at 1 (ECF No. 1).
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 (2002)). 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 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 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 at 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-01018-UNJ Document 19 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 2
On February 3, 2015, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) reporting indicating that this case was
not appropriate for compensation. Resp’t’s Rule 4(c) Report (ECF No. 12) at 1. Respondent argued
that “[P]etitioner has failed to offer a reputable scientific or medical theory establishing that
hepatitis A and/or hepatitis B vaccines can cause reactive arthritis, myalgia, and arthralgia” and
also failed to show a “logical sequence of cause and effect.” Id. at 9.
Petitioner has now filed a motion seeking dismissal of this case. Pet’r’s Mot. for Decision
Dismissing his Pet., dated June 17, 2015 (ECF No. 16). In that motion, Petitioner indicates that
“[a]n investigation of facts and science supporting his case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that
he will be unable to prove that he is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Id. at 1.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Program, a petitioner must prove either (1)
that he suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or (2) that he 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, does not
uncover any evidence that Mr. Summers suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not
contain sufficient persuasive evidence establishing that the alleged injury that he experienced
could have been caused by the vaccination(s) received and Petitioner himself has acknowledged
he possesses no contrary evidence.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not receive a Vaccine Program award based solely
on her 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 Petitioner 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
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01018-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-09-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/27/2015) regarding 22 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01018-UNJ Document 25 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1018V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JOHN SUMMERS, *
* Filed: August 27, 2015
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner
Camille Michelle Collett, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On October 20, 2014, John Summers filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On June 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion to
Voluntarily Dismiss the Petition. I subsequently issued a decision dismissing the case.
On August 27, 2015, counsel for both parties filed a joint stipulation, this time in regards
to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a
lump sum of $16,500.00, 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, and in compliance
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 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). 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-01018-UNJ Document 25 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2
with General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that he did incur any reimbursable costs in
proceeding on this petition.
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 $16,500.00 payable jointly to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Paul Brazil, Esq. 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.