VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00023
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00023
Petitioner: Brandie Terry
Filed: 2015-07-22
Decided: 2015-09-04
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2012-10-29
Condition: immunity disorder or allergic reaction manifesting in exhaustion, vision problems, joint pain, rashes, and headaches
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 11334

AI-assisted case summary:
Brandie Terry filed a petition alleging that a Tdap vaccine administered on October 29, 2012, caused her to suffer from an immunity disorder or allergic reaction, manifesting in exhaustion, vision problems, joint pain, rashes, and headaches. The petition was filed on July 22, 2015. After reviewing the case, Petitioner determined she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. On July 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing Her Petition, stating that an investigation demonstrated she could not prove her case. The court found no evidence of a Table Injury and no persuasive medical evidence indicating the vaccine caused her alleged injuries. As a result, the petition was dismissed for insufficient proof on August 13, 2015. Subsequently, on September 4, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation regarding attorneys' fees and costs, agreeing to an award of $11,334.97. The court found the petition was brought in good faith and awarded the agreed-upon fees and costs.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00023-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-08-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/22/2015) regarding 28 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (jb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00023-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-23V
Filed: July 22, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
BRANDIE TERRY, *
* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Petitioner’s Motion for Dismissal
* Decision; Tetanus, Diphtheria,
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Pertussis (“TDaP”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Immunity Disorder.
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sean Greenwood, The Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner
Darryl Wishard, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 8, 2015, Brandie Terry (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006)
(“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that a Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis (“TDaP”) vaccine
administered on October 29, 2012 caused her to suffer from an immunity disorder or allergic
reaction manifesting in exhaustion, vision problems, joint pain, rashes, and headaches. Petition
(“Pet.”) at 1. The undersigned now finds that the information in the record does not show
entitlement to an award under the Program.
On July 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing Her Petition.
According to the Motion, “[a]n investigation of the facts and science supporting [her] case has
demonstrated to Petitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in
the Vaccine Program.” Petitioner further states that she understands that dismissal decision will
result in a judgment against her, and that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine
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 and note (2006)). In accordance with
Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party 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,
the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision,
such material will be deleted from public access.

Case 1:15-vv-00023-UNJ Document 29 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 2
Program.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, Petitioner must prove either 1) that she
suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table – corresponding
to one of her vaccinations, 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 she suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical
expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that her injuries were caused by a
vaccination.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on the
petitioner’s claims alone. 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 offered no such 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/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00023-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-09-04
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/14/2015) regarding 31 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (mb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00023-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-23V
Filed: August 14, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
BRANDIE TERRY, *
* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;
* Reasonable Amount Requested to
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * which Respondent Does Not Object.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sean Greenwood, The Greenwood Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioner
Darryl Wishard, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 8, 2015, Brandie Terry (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006)
(“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that a Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis (“TDaP”) vaccine
administered on October 29, 2012 caused her to suffer from an immunity disorder or allergic
reaction manifesting in exhaustion, vision problems, joint pain, rashes, and headaches. On July
22, 2015, the undersigned issued a decision dismissing the petition.
On August 13, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs. Pursuant to their Stipulation, the parties have agreed to an award of $11,334.97 in
fees and costs. Of this amount, $11,075.00 is compensation for fees and costs incurred by
Petitioner’s counsel; $259.97 is compensation for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by
Petitioner.
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 and note (2006)). In accordance with
Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party 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,
the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision,
such material will be deleted from public access.

Case 1:15-vv-00023-UNJ Document 33 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 2
The undersigned finds 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 amounts seem reasonable and
appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $11,075.00, in the
form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Sean
Greenwood, of The Greenwood Law Firm. The undersigned also awards the amount of
$259.97, in the form of a check payable solely 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/ Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint
filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2