VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00081 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00081 Petitioner: R.D. Filed: 2019-01-16 Decided: 2025-06-23 Vaccine: MMR Vaccination date: 2017-06-02 Condition: acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis (ADEM) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 95000 AI-assisted case summary: On January 16, 2019, Tina and Paul D’Errico filed a petition on behalf of their minor child, R.D., seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. They alleged that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella vaccines administered to R.D. on June 2, 2017, caused acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis (ADEM). The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the vaccines caused R.D.'s alleged injuries. However, on June 23, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to an award of compensation. Special Master Herbrina D.S. Young reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the Court. The stipulation provided for compensation in the amount of $95,000.00, which was to be used to purchase an annuity contract. This award was intended to cover all damages available under the program. The decision was entered on June 23, 2025. Diana Lynn Stadelnikas represented the petitioners, and Madelyn Weeks represented the respondent. The public decision does not describe R.D.'s specific clinical story, onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or any expert witnesses. The specific mechanism of causation was not detailed in the public decision. Theory of causation field: Petitioners alleged that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and varicella vaccines administered on June 2, 2017, caused R.D. to suffer from acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis (ADEM). The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a stipulation for compensation, which was adopted by Special Master Herbrina D.S. Young on June 23, 2025. The award was $95,000.00 to purchase an annuity. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, mechanism, or any expert testimony. Petitioners were represented by Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, and respondent was represented by Madelyn Weeks. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00081-0 Date issued/filed: 2025-07-21 Pages: 9 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/24/25) regarding 69 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Herbrina D S Young. (kis) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 1 of 9 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: June 24, 2025 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TINA D’ERRICO and PAUL D’ERRICO * on behalf of R.D., a minor child, * * Petitioners, * No. 19-81V * v. * Special Master Young * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Diana Lynn Stadelnikas, Mctlaw, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioners. Madelyn Weeks, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION1 On January 16, 2019, Tina D’Errico and Paul D’Errico (“Petitioners”) filed a petition on behalf of R.D., a minor child, for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018). Petitioners alleged that the measles-mumps-rubella (“MMR”) and varicella vaccines R.D. received on June 2, 2017, caused R.D. to suffer from acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”). Pet., ECF No. 1. On June 23, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation (attached as Appendix A)3 in which they state that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioners. Stipulation ¶ 7, ECF No. 56. Respondent “denies that the vaccines caused-in-fact R.D.’s alleged injuries, any other injury, or her current condition.” Id. ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation. See id. ¶ 7. 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 action taken in this case, it must be made publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (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), Petitioners have 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. 3 The attached stipulation omits the AssureSign Document Completion Report to avoid unnecessary disclosure of Petitioners’ personal information. Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 2 of 9 The parties stipulate that Petitioners shall receive the following compensation: (a) An amount of $95,000.00 to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10 of the stipulation, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased (the “Life Insurance Company”). Id. ¶ 8. These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I approve the requested amount for Petitioners’ compensation. Accordingly, an award should be made consistent with the stipulation. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Herbrina D.S. Young Herbrina D.S. Young Special Master 4 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 3 of 9 Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 4 of 9 Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 5 of 9 Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 6 of 9 Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 7 of 9 Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 8 of 9 Case 1:19-vv-00081-UNJ Document 73 Filed 07/21/25 Page 9 of 9