VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01117
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01117
Petitioner: Barry Reese
Filed: 2017-11-20
Decided: 2018-01-11
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-09-30
Condition: Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 310000

AI-assisted case summary:
Barry Reese filed a petition on September 8, 2016, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) as a result of receiving an influenza ("flu") vaccine on September 30, 2013, and that he experienced residual effects from this condition for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Reese's ADEM or any other injury. Despite their differing positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on November 20, 2017. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the court. The stipulation awarded Mr. Reese a lump sum of $310,000.00, payable to him, as compensation for all damages. This award was made based on the parties' agreement. Ronald Craig Homer represented the petitioner, and Mallori Browne Openchowski represented the respondent. The decision was issued on January 11, 2018.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Barry Reese alleged that his Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM), which he experienced after receiving an influenza vaccine on September 30, 2013, was caused by the vaccination. Respondent denied this allegation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, filed November 20, 2017, agreeing to an award of $310,000.00. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as his decision on January 11, 2018. The specific medical mechanism or expert opinions supporting the causation theory were not detailed in the public decision, as the case was resolved by stipulation. The award was a lump sum payable to the petitioner.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01117-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-01-11
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/20/2017) Regarding 29 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01117-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-1117V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BARRY REESE, *
* Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: November 20, 2017
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Acute
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Disseminated Encephalomyelitis
* (“ADEM”).
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 8, 2016, Barry Reese filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that he
suffered from Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”), as a result of his September 30,
2013, influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petitioner further alleges that he has experienced 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-01117-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s ADEM or any other injury.
Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation
(filed on November 20, 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 $310,000.00, 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-01117-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/11/18 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01117-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/11/18 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01117-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/11/18 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01117-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/11/18 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01117-UNJ Document 33 Filed 01/11/18 Page 7 of 7