VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01161
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01161
Petitioner: Eoin Coffey
Filed: 2015-10-09
Decided: 2019-05-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2012-10-10
Condition: neurologic disorder
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 35000

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 9, 2015, James and Christina Coffey filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their son, Eoin Coffey, who was a minor at the time of filing. The petition was later amended to reflect Eoin Coffey reaching the age of majority. Petitioner alleges that he developed a neurologic disorder after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 10, 2012. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the immunization caused the petitioner's injury. Despite the denial, the parties reached a joint stipulation to settle the case. Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth adopted the stipulation. The settlement includes a lump sum of $30,000.00 payable to Eoin Coffey and a lump sum of $5,000.00 payable jointly to Eoin Coffey and his parents, James and Christina Coffey. These amounts are intended to compensate for all damages available under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. The decision was issued on May 16, 2019. Andrew Downing, Esq., represented the petitioner, and Lara Englund, Esq., represented the respondent. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses involved in this case.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Eoin Coffey received an influenza vaccine on October 10, 2012, and subsequently developed a neurologic disorder. The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a joint stipulation to settle the case, and Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth adopted the stipulation. The award consists of $30,000.00 payable to Eoin Coffey and $5,000.00 payable jointly to Eoin Coffey and his parents, James and Christina Coffey. The public decision does not specify the theory of causation, the mechanism of injury, or name any experts. The case was filed on October 9, 2015, and the decision was issued on May 16, 2019. Petitioner counsel was Andrew Downing, Esq., and respondent counsel was Lara Englund, Esq.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01161-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-06-10
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/16/2019) regarding 61 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (mw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01161-UNJ Document 67 Filed 06/10/19 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1161V
Filed: May 16, 2019
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
EOIN COFFEY, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;
* Neurologic Disorder; Influenza
v. * (“Flu”) Vaccine
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andrew Downing, Esq., Van Cott & Talamante, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for petitioner.
Lara Englund, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Roth, Special Master:
On October 9, 2015, James and Christina Coffey filed a petition for compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on behalf of their son, E.C., who was a minor
at the time of filing.2 Eoin Coffey (“petitioner”) has since reached the age of majority and the
caption in this matter was amended to reflect this change on April 15, 2019. Order, ECF No. 57.
Petitioner alleges that he developed a neurologic disorder after receiving the influenza (“flu”)
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-
347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision
will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).
1

Case 1:15-vv-01161-UNJ Document 67 Filed 06/10/19 Page 2 of 7
vaccine on October 10, 2012. Stipulation, filed May 16, 2019, at ¶¶ 1-4. Respondent denies that
the aforementioned immunization caused petitioner’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On May 16, 2019, the parties filed
a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.
Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:
1. A lump sum of $30,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Eoin Coffey;
and
2. A lump sum of $5,000.00 in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and James
and Christina Coffey.
These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under §
300aa-15(a).
I adopt the parties’ stipulation attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and
on the terms set forth therein. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with
this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:15-vv-01161-UNJ Document 67 Filed 06/10/19 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01161-UNJ Document 67 Filed 06/10/19 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01161-UNJ Document 67 Filed 06/10/19 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01161-UNJ Document 67 Filed 06/10/19 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01161-UNJ Document 67 Filed 06/10/19 Page 7 of 7