VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01713
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01713
Petitioner: Lisa K. Mathis
Filed: 2018-11-05
Decided: 2020-06-11
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-11-13
Condition: anaphylaxis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 25000

AI-assisted case summary:
Lisa K. Mathis filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered anaphylaxis as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on November 13, 2017. The respondent conceded that Ms. Mathis is entitled to compensation, agreeing that she experienced anaphylaxis within an hour of receiving the vaccine. Respondent also agreed that there was no preponderant evidence of an alternate cause for her condition and that she suffered residual effects for more than six months. Based on the respondent's concession and the evidence of record, the court found Ms. Mathis entitled to compensation. Subsequently, the parties submitted a proffer on award of damages, agreeing to a lump sum payment of $25,000.00. This amount represents compensation for all damages available under the Vaccine Act. The court awarded Ms. Mathis the $25,000.00 lump sum payment.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01713-0
Date issued/filed: 2020-04-14
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/11/2020) regarding 30 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01713-UNJ Document 33 Filed 04/14/20 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1713V
UNPUBLISHED
LISA K. MATHIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 11, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Anaphylaxis
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On November 5, 2018, Lisa K. Mathis 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 she suffered anaphylaxis as a result of an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 13, 2017. Petition at Preamble.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On February 12, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule
4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent concedes that Petitioner experienced
anaphylaxis within an hour of receiving the vaccine at issue. Id. at 3. Respondent
1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling 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, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such
material 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 1:18-vv-01713-UNJ Document 33 Filed 04/14/20 Page 2 of 2
further agrees that “there is not preponderate evidence of an alternate cause for
[P]etitioner’s anaphylaxis” and the medical records demonstrate that Petitioner has
suffered the residual effects of her condition for more than six months. Id. at 3-4.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01713-1
Date issued/filed: 2020-06-11
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/11/2020) regarding 35 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:18-vv-01713-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 18-1713V
UNPUBLISHED
LISA K. MATHIS, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: May 11, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Anaphylaxis
Respondent.
Nancy Routh Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.
Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 5, 2018, Lisa K. Mathis 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 she suffered anaphylaxis as a result of an
influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 13, 2017. Petition at Preamble.
The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.
On March 11, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for anaphylaxis. ECF 30. On May 11, 2020, Respondent filed a proffer
on award of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded
$25,000.00. Proffer at 1. In the Proffer, Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees
with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is
entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 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, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such
material 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 1:18-vv-01713-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 4
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $25,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a).
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief 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 1:18-vv-01713-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
LISA K. MATHIS,
Petitioner, No. 18-1713V
v. Chief Special Master Corcoran
ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF DAMAGES
On November 5, 2018, Lisa K. Mathis (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation
(“Petition”) under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -
34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), as amended. The Petition alleged that petitioner suffered
anaphylaxis as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on November 13, 2017.
Petition at Preamble. Respondent conceded petitioner’s entitlement to compensation in his Rule
4(c) Report filed on February 12, 2020. Based on Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report the Court
found petitioner entitled to compensation.
I. Item of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$25,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be entitled
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
1

Case 1:18-vv-01713-UNJ Document 39 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 4
through a lump sum payment of $25,000.00, in the form of a check made payable to petitioner.1
This lump sum payment represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Petitioner agrees.
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/Jennifer L. Reynaud
JENNIFER L. REYNAUD
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-1586
Date: May 11, 2020
1 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2