VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00042
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00042
Petitioner: Jamie Emerson
Filed: 2015-01-15
Decided: 2019-11-18
Vaccine: Hepatitis B
Vaccination date: 2012-07-19
Condition: uveitis and retinal migraines
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 65000

AI-assisted case summary:
Jamie Emerson filed a petition on January 15, 2015, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered from uveitis and retinal migraines as a result of receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine on July 19, 2012, and that these conditions had residual effects for more than six months. The respondent denied that the Hepatitis B vaccine caused Ms. Emerson's alleged injuries. However, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on September 17, 2019. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Jamie Emerson a lump sum of $65,000.00, payable by check, as compensation for all damages. The decision directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly. Ronald Craig Homer represented the petitioner, and Adriana Ruth Teitel represented the respondent. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details of the uveitis and retinal migraines, any diagnostic tests performed, or treatments received. It also does not name any medical experts or detail the specific mechanism by which the Hepatitis B vaccine allegedly caused the claimed conditions.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jamie Emerson alleged that the Hepatitis B vaccine administered on July 19, 2012, caused her to suffer from uveitis and retinal migraines, with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, filed September 17, 2019, agreeing to an award of $65,000.00. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision. The public text does not specify the theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury. The award was a lump sum of $65,000.00. Attorneys involved were Ronald Craig Homer for the petitioner and Adriana Ruth Teitel for the respondent. The decision date was November 18, 2019.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00042-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-11-18
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/17/2019) regarding 74 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (bm) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00042-UNJ Document 80 Filed 11/18/19 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-042V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Special Master Corcoran
JAMIE EMERSON, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: September 17, 2019
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Hepatitis B Vaccine; Uveitis; Retinal
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Migraines.
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 15, 2015, Jamie Emerson filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that she
suffered from uveitis and retinal migraines as a result of receiving the Hepatitis B (“Hep B”)
vaccine on July 19, 2012. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that she experienced residual effects of this
injury for more than six months.
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 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 Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:15-vv-00042-UNJ Document 80 Filed 11/18/19 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that the Hep B vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer uveitis or retinal
migraines. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a
stipulation (filed on September 17, 2019) 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 $65,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a) of the Act.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount 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 1:15-vv-00042-UNJ Document 80 Filed 11/18/19 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00042-UNJ Document 80 Filed 11/18/19 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00042-UNJ Document 80 Filed 11/18/19 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00042-UNJ Document 80 Filed 11/18/19 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00042-UNJ Document 80 Filed 11/18/19 Page 7 of 7