Mark V. Davis v. HHS - Td, brachial neuritis (2024)
Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]
Mark V. Davis, a 71-year-old dentist, filed a claim under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on February 26, 2016, alleging that he developed brachial neuritis as a Table injury following a tetanus-diphtheria (Td) vaccination administered on September 20, 2013.
Twelve days later, on October 2, 2013, Mr. Davis experienced acute aching pain and loss of motor function in his dominant right hand and arm, particularly affecting his thumb's ability to extend.
He consulted various providers who initially attributed his symptoms to pre-existing cervical radiculopathy and newly diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome. In January 2014, he suffered a myocardial infarction.
On November 10, 2015, he was evaluated by Dr. Joseph Feinberg, a physiatrist specializing in brachial plexus disorders, who provided an additional diagnosis of brachial neuritis.
Respondent, represented by Julia M. Collison of the U.S.
Department of Justice, contested the diagnosis, with expert neurologist Dr. Vinay Chaudhry arguing that Mr.
Davis's condition was inconsistent with the Vaccine Injury Table's definition of brachial neuritis and could be explained by cervical radiculopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome. Petitioner was represented by Leah V.
Durant and later Michael P. Milmoe of the Law Offices of Leah V.
Durant, LLC. Special Master Thomas L.
Gowen presided over the case. After extensive review of medical records, expert testimony from Dr.
Feinberg for the petitioner and Dr. Chaudhry for the respondent, and a hearing, Special Master Gowen issued a Ruling on Entitlement on July 23, 2021, finding that Mr.
Davis had established entitlement to compensation for a Table brachial neuritis injury. The Special Master determined that the injury was caused by the Td vaccine and resulted in significant, permanent disability, but excluded comorbid conditions such as cervical radiculopathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, and cardiac issues from the compensable injury.
A subsequent damages hearing was held on October 30, 2023. On January 17, 2024, Special Master Gowen issued a decision awarding Mr.
Davis $1,036,017.00 in past lost wages and $250,000.00 for pain and suffering, totaling $1,286,017.00. This award was based on the determination that Mr.
Davis intended to work until age 80 and that his cardiac condition did not prevent him from continuing his dental practice. The Special Master found that the capital loss from the sale of the dental practice and interest on business loans were not compensable.
Theory of causation
Petitioner Mark V. Davis, aged 71, received a Td vaccination on September 20, 2013. Twelve days later, on October 2, 2013, he developed aching pain and loss of motor function in his right hand and arm, diagnosed as brachial neuritis. Petitioner alleged this was a Table injury. Respondent contested the diagnosis, attributing symptoms to cervical radiculopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Joseph Feinberg, a physiatrist specializing in brachial plexus disorders, opined that Mr. Davis suffered acute injury to the anterior interosseous nerve and long thoracic nerve, consistent with brachial neuritis, resulting in permanent disability. Respondent's expert, Dr. Vinay Chaudhry, a neurologist, argued that the symptoms were more consistent with cervical radiculopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome, and that any brachial neuritis was mild. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen ruled on July 23, 2021, that Mr. Davis was entitled to compensation for a Table brachial neuritis injury, finding it vaccine-caused and distinct from his comorbidities. On January 17, 2024, Special Master Gowen awarded Mr. Davis $1,036,017.00 in past lost wages and $250,000.00 for pain and suffering, totaling $1,286,017.00. Attorneys for petitioner were Leah V. Durant and Michael P. Milmoe; respondent's attorney was Julia M. Collison. The theory of causation relied on the Table definition of brachial neuritis, with Dr. Feinberg's expert opinion supporting the diagnosis and Dr. Chaudhry's opinion refuting it, ultimately favoring Dr. Feinberg's findings for entitlement.