Chrystal Derenzo v. HHS - Meningococcal, uveitis (2017)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
On January 8, 2016, Chrystal Derenzo filed a petition on behalf of her minor son, A.S., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The petition alleged that A.S. suffered from uveitis as a result of his meningococcal vaccine administered on August 8, 2014, and that the condition's residual effects lasted for more than six months.
The respondent denied that the vaccine caused A.S.'s uveitis or any other injury. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on July 3, 2017.
Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as his decision.
The stipulation awarded A.S. a total of $128,431.23. This amount was broken down into a lump sum of $120,000.00, payable as a check to Petitioner as guardian/conservator of A.S.'s estate, and a lump sum of $8,431.23, payable as a check to Petitioner.
This award represents compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details, diagnostic tests, treatments, or expert witnesses involved in this case.
Ronald C. Homer represented the petitioner, and Lara A.
Englund represented the respondent.
Theory of causation
Petitioner alleged that A.S. suffered from uveitis as a result of his August 8, 2014, meningococcal vaccine, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, which was adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The stipulation awarded $120,000.00 to A.S. as guardian/conservator of his estate and $8,431.23 to Petitioner Chrystal Derenzo, totaling $128,431.23. The public decision does not specify the theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused the uveitis. The case was settled before a determination of entitlement based on specific medical evidence or legal precedent.
Source PDFs
USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00035