VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00035
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00035
Petitioner: A.S.
Filed: 2016-01-08
Decided: 2017-08-17
Vaccine: meningococcal
Vaccination date: 2014-08-08
Condition: uveitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 128431

AI-assisted case summary:
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 field:
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.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00035-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-08-17
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/05/2017) regarding 33 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (sb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00035-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/17/17 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-35V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CHRYSTAL DERENZO, parent of *
A.S., a minor, * Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: July 5, 2017
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Meningococcal Vaccine; Uveitis.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Lara A. Englund, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
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 (“Vaccine
Program”).2 The petition alleges that A.S. suffered from uveitis as a result of his August 8, 2014,
meningococcal vaccine. Petitioner further alleges that A.S. suffered the residual effects of this
condition for more than six months.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This
means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 in its present form will be
available. 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”).

Case 1:16-vv-00035-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/17/17 Page 2 of 8
Respondent denies that the meningococcal vaccine caused A.S.’s uveitis, or any other
injury or his current condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated
positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on July 3, 2017) 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 $120,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, as
guardian/conservator of A.S.’s estate; and
 A lump sum of $8,431.23 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 1:16-vv-00035-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/17/17 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:16-vv-00035-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/17/17 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:16-vv-00035-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/17/17 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:16-vv-00035-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/17/17 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:16-vv-00035-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/17/17 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:16-vv-00035-UNJ Document 36 Filed 08/17/17 Page 8 of 8