VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01320
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01320
Petitioner: Randy Blair Davis
Filed: 2017-07-28
Decided: 2017-08-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-10-28
Condition: post-vaccine syndrome with demyelinating features
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 70000

AI-assisted case summary:
Randy Blair Davis filed a petition on July 28, 2017, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from a post-vaccine syndrome with demyelinating features as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on October 28, 2014. Mr. Davis further alleged 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 the petitioner's alleged condition or any other injuries. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on July 27, 2017. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and adopted the stipulation as the decision. The stipulation awarded Mr. Davis a lump sum of $70,000.00 as compensation for all damages. The decision noted that the case was not to be published but would be available on the Court of Federal Claims' website, with parties having fourteen days to request redaction of confidential information. Nancy R. Meyers represented the petitioner, and Claudia B. Gangi represented the respondent. Judgment was to be entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Randy Blair Davis alleged that an influenza vaccine received on October 28, 2014, caused a post-vaccine syndrome with demyelinating features, with residual effects lasting over six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties settled via stipulation filed July 27, 2017, agreeing to an award of $70,000.00 for all damages. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision on August 23, 2017. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or detailed clinical facts supporting the alleged causation or the settlement terms beyond the agreed-upon compensation amount. Petitioner counsel was Nancy R. Meyers, and respondent counsel was Claudia B. Gangi.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01320-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-08-23
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/28/2017) Regarding 19 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01320-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/23/17 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-1320V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RANDY BLAIR DAVIS, *
* Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: July 28, 2017
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Post-Vaccine Syndrome with Demyelinating
* Features.
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nancy R. Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Claudia B. Gangi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 11, 2016, Randy Blair Davis filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that he
suffered from a post-vaccine syndrome with demyelinating features as a result of his October 28,
2014, 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-01320-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/23/17 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s post-vaccine syndrome with
demyelinating features or any other injuries. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their
above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on July 27, 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 $70,000.00 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-01320-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/23/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01320-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/23/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01320-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/23/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01320-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/23/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01320-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/23/17 Page 7 of 7