VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00449
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00449
Petitioner: Q.P.
Filed: 2015-05-04
Decided: 2019-03-07
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2012-08-09
Condition: chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 960000

AI-assisted case summary:
Q.P. filed a petition on May 4, 2015, alleging that he suffered from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) as a result of receiving a Tdap vaccination on August 9, 2012, and an MMR vaccination on August 27, 2012. The respondent denied that the vaccines caused the petitioner's CIDP or any other injury. The parties, Ronald Craig Homer for the petitioner and Jennifer Leigh Reynaud for the respondent, reached a joint stipulation to settle the case. The stipulation stated that the respondent denied causation but agreed to a settlement. The terms of the stipulation awarded Q.P. a lump sum of $960,000.00, payable by check, as compensation for all damages. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Judgment was entered in accordance with the stipulation. The decision was originally filed on December 14, 2018, and refiled in redacted form on March 7, 2019, with the petitioner's name redacted to initials. The public decision does not describe the petitioner's specific symptoms, medical history, diagnostic tests, treatments, or any expert witnesses. The specific mechanism of causation was not detailed in the public decision.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Q.P. alleged CIDP resulting from Tdap (August 9, 2012) and MMR (August 27, 2012) vaccinations. Respondent denied causation. The parties entered a joint stipulation for settlement, awarding Q.P. $960,000.00 as a lump sum for all damages. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccines allegedly caused CIDP. The decision was filed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen on March 7, 2019, after being refiled in redacted form. Petitioner counsel was Ronald Craig Homer, and respondent counsel was Jennifer Leigh Reynaud.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00449-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-03-07
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/14/2018) regarding 85 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen. (hs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00449-UNJ Document 92 Filed 03/07/19 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: December 14, 2018
Refiled in Redacted Form: March 7, 2019
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Q.P., * UNPUBLISHED
*
* No. 15-449V
Petitioner, *
v. * Special Master Gowen
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Joint Stipulation; TDaP; MMR;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Chronic Inflammatory
* Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
* (CIDP).
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON STIPULATION1
On May 4, 2015, Q.P., (“petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (“Program”).2 Petition (ECF No. 1). Petitioner alleged that he suffered
from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) as a result of receiving a
TDaP vaccination on August 9, 2012 and an MMR vaccination on August 27, 2012. Id. at
Preamble.
On December 14, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation in which they stated that a
decision should be entered awarding compensation to petitioner. Stipulation (ECF No. 84).
Respondent denied that petitioner’s alleged CIDP and residual effects were caused-in-fact by Tdap
vaccine and/or MMR vaccine, and denied that Tdap vaccine and/or MMR vaccine caused
petitioner any other injury or his current condition. Id. at ¶ 6.
1 When this decision was originally filed, the undersigned advised the parties of his intent 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), petitioners filed a motion to redact certain information. This decision is being reissued with minimal
changes, including redaction of the petitioner’s name in the case caption to initials. Except for those changes and this
footnote, no other substantive changes have been made. This decision will be posted to the Court’s website with no
further opportunity to move for redaction.
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. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012)
(“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).

Case 1:15-vv-00449-UNJ Document 92 Filed 03/07/19 Page 2 of 7
Maintaining their above-stated positions, the parties nevertheless now agree that the issues
between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to
petitioner according to the terms of the joint stipulation attached hereto as Appendix A.
The joint stipulation awards:
A lump sum of $960,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. This amount
represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-15(a).
I find the stipulation reasonable and I adopt it as the decision of the Court in
awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with
the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 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

Case 1:15-vv-00449-UNJ Document 92 Filed 03/07/19 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00449-UNJ Document 92 Filed 03/07/19 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00449-UNJ Document 92 Filed 03/07/19 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00449-UNJ Document 92 Filed 03/07/19 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00449-UNJ Document 92 Filed 03/07/19 Page 7 of 7