VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00323 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00323 Petitioner: Annmarie Auer Filed: 2015-12-14 Decided: 2016-06-08 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2012-05-15 Condition: brachial plexopathy Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 95000 AI-assisted case summary: Annmarie Auer filed a petition on December 14, 2015, alleging that she developed brachial plexopathy as a result of a Tdap vaccine she received on May 15, 2012. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, reviewed the case and conceded that the petitioner's brachial plexopathy was caused in fact by the Tdap vaccine and that it qualified as a Table Injury. The respondent also noted that no other causes for the petitioner's condition were identified and that she met the statutory requirement of suffering the condition for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession, the Special Master entered a decision on March 7, 2016, finding entitlement to compensation. Subsequently, on April 11, 2016, the respondent filed a proffer proposing an award of $95,000.00. The Special Master reviewed the proffer and found it reasonable, issuing a decision on June 8, 2016, awarding the petitioner $95,000.00 in compensation. Theory of causation field: Table Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00323-0 Date issued/filed: 2016-03-07 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC RULING (Originally filed: 12/14/2015) Regarding 19 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:15-vv-00323-UNJ Document 25 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-323V Not to be Published * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANNMARIE AUER, * Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: December 14, 2015 * v. * * Entitlement; Brachial Plexopathy; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“Tdap”); Conceded. * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Camille M. Collett, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT1 On March 30, 2015, Petitioner Annmarie Auer filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that she developed brachial plexopathy as a result of a Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertusis (“Tdap”) vaccine that she received on May 15, 2012. 1 Because this ruling 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, 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 published rulings 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 ruling 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, 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. Case 1:15-vv-00323-UNJ Document 25 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 2 In her Rule 4(c) Report, Respondent indicated that the Petitioner’s claim is compensable under the Act. Respondent specifically stated that the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (“DVIC”), Department of Health and Human Services, has reviewed the facts of this case and has concluded that “[P]etitioner’s brachial neuritis was caused in fact by the Tdap vaccine she received on May 15, 2012.” Rule 4(c) Report at 6. Additionally, the Rule 4(c) report acknowledges that “DICP did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s brachial neuritis, and based on the medical records [], [P]etitioner met the statutory requirements by suffering the condition for more than six months.” Id. Respondent therefore concludes that Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages. In view of Respondent’s concession, and based on my own review of the record (see Section 13(a)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3 (a)(I)), I find that Petitioner is entitled to compensation for an injury that was caused-in-fact by a covered vaccine. 42 C.F.R. §§ 100.3(a)(XIV), 100.3(b)(2). A separate damages order will issue shortly. Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Ashley Yull, at (202) 357-6391. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Brian H. Corcoran Brian H. Corcoran Special Master 2 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00323-1 Date issued/filed: 2016-06-08 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/12/2016) Regarding 28 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (ay) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:15-vv-00323-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 15-323V (Not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANNMARIE AUER, * * Petitioner, * Filed: April 12, 2016 * v. * Decision by Proffer; Damages; * Tetanus Diphtheria Acellular * Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Brachial SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Plexopathy; Table Injury HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald Craig Homer, Boston, MA, for Petitioner. Camille Michelle Collett, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On March 30, 2015, Petitioner Annmarie Auer filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 On December 9, 2015, Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) report conceding that Petitioner suffered a Table Injury of brachial plexopathy due to her receipt of a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine. On December 14, 2016, I entered a decision finding that Petitioner had established that she was entitled to compensation for her injury. 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.) 2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10 to ' 300aa-34 (2012). Case 1:15-vv-00323-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 2 On April 11, 2016, Respondent filed a proffer proposing an award of compensation to Petitioner. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review I conclude that Respondent’s proffer is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein. The proffer proposes that I award Petitioner the following specific amount: A lump sum of $95,000.00, representing all elements of compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a) to which Petitioner is entitled in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Annmarie Auer; Proffer § 2. I approve a Vaccine Program award in the 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), entry of judgment may be expedited by the parties= joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.