VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00818
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00818
Petitioner: Cristopher O’hern
Filed: 2017-06-19
Decided: 2021-09-16
Vaccine: Hepatitis A
Vaccination date: 2016-02-23
Condition: right-sided brachial neuritis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 62500

AI-assisted case summary:
Cristopher O’Hern filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on June 19, 2017. He alleged that he suffered right-sided brachial neuritis as a result of his Hepatitis A vaccination administered on February 23, 2016. Mr. O’Hern further claimed that the residual effects of his injury lasted for more than six months and that there had been no prior award or settlement for damages related to his condition. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the Hepatitis A vaccine caused or significantly aggravated Mr. O’Hern’s alleged brachial neuritis injury or any other injury or his current condition. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation for damages on August 10, 2021. Special Master Daniel T. Horner reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, Mr. O’Hern was awarded a lump sum of $62,500.00, payable by check to the petitioner. This amount was designated as compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The decision was issued on September 16, 2021. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant of the Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, and respondent was represented by Wei Kit Tai of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Cristopher O’Hern alleged that his February 23, 2016 Hepatitis A vaccination caused right-sided brachial neuritis, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for damages, which Special Master Daniel T. Horner found reasonable and adopted. The stipulation resulted in an award of $62,500.00. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or detailed clinical findings supporting the petitioner's claim or the respondent's denial. Petitioner counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent counsel was Wei Kit Tai. The decision date was September 16, 2021.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-00818-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-09-16
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/11/2021) regarding 56 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer, Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (mly) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-00818-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/16/21 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-818V
Filed: August 11, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
CRISTOPHER O’HERN,
Petitioner,
Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v.
Hepatitis A (Hep A) Vaccine; Brachial
Neuritis
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for
petitioner.
Wei Kit Tai, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On June 19, 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 right-sided brachial neuritis as a result of his
February 23, 2016 Hepatitis A (“Hep A”) vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed
August 10, 2021, at ¶ 1. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced the residual
effects of his injury for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or
settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of his condition. Petition at 5;
Stipulation at ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that the Hep A vaccine caused and/or
significant aggravated petitioner’s alleged brachial neuritis injury and or any other injury
or his current condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on August 10, 2021, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation
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-00818-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/16/21 Page 2 of 7
reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms
set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following
compensation:
A lump sum of $62, 500.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of
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-00818-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/16/21 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00818-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/16/21 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00818-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/16/21 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00818-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/16/21 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:17-vv-00818-UNJ Document 60 Filed 09/16/21 Page 7 of 7