VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00607
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00607
Petitioner: David Robin Curtis
Filed: 2017-05-05
Decided: 2019-08-19
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 2014-05-05
Condition: exacerbation of severe dry eyes and mouth
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 5000

AI-assisted case summary:
David Robin Curtis filed a petition on May 5, 2017, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that on May 5, 2014, he received the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and subsequently suffered an exacerbation of severe dry eyes and mouth. Mr. Curtis further alleged that he experienced residual effects of this condition for more than six months. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the respondent, denied that Mr. Curtis sustained a vaccine injury, denied that the vaccine caused his alleged symptoms or any other injury, and denied that his current condition was a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, on July 24, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to an award of compensation. Special Master Daniel T. Horner reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as the decision of the court. Pursuant to the stipulation, David Robin Curtis was awarded a lump sum of $5,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner. This amount represents all remaining compensation for damages available under § 15(a). The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical examinations, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation. Petitioner was represented by Zachary James Hermsen of Whitfield & Eddy Law, and respondent was represented by Julia Marter Collison of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner David Robin Curtis alleged that the MMR vaccine administered on May 5, 2014, caused an exacerbation of severe dry eyes and mouth, with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a joint stipulation for compensation. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused the condition. The Special Master adopted the stipulation, leading to an award of $5,000.00. The decision was issued by Special Master Daniel T. Horner on August 19, 2019. Petitioner's counsel was Zachary James Hermsen, and respondent's counsel was Julia Marter Collison.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00607-0
Date issued/filed: 2019-08-19
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/24/2019) regarding 46 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (et) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00607-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-607V
Filed: June 25, 2019
UNPUBLISHED
DAVID ROBIN CURTIS,
Petitioner,
Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v.
Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR)
Vaccine; Dry Eyes; Dry Mouth
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Zachary James Hermsen, Whitfield & Eddy Law, Des Moines, IA, for petitioner.
Julia Marter Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On May 5, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered an exacerbation of severe dry eyes and mouth
as a result of his May 5, 2014 receipt of the measles, mumps, and rubella (“MMR”)
vaccine. (Pet., p. 1; Stip., filed July 24, 2019, at ¶¶ 1-4.) Petitioner further alleges that
he experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. (Pet., p. 1;
Stip. at ¶ 4.) “Respondent denies that petitioner sustained a vaccine injury; denies that
the vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged symptoms, or any other injury; and denies that
his current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.” (Stip. at ¶ 6.)
Nevertheless, on July 24, 2019, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms
set forth therein.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this case, it will
be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. See 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic
Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the
Internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If the special master, upon review, agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, it will be
redacted from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:17-vv-00607-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 2 of 7
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
a. A lump sum of $5,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
(Stip. at ¶ 8.) This amount represents all remaining compensation for
damages that would be available under § 15(a). (Id.)
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the
clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Daniel T. Horner
Daniel T. Horner
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:17-vv-00607-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00607-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00607-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00607-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00607-UNJ Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 7 of 7