VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00679
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00679
Petitioner: Branch R. Lew
Filed: 2019-05-08
Decided: 2021-12-02
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2016-06-09
Condition: chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 190500

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 8, 2019, Branch R. Lew filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine he received on June 9, 2016, caused him to develop chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) and that this injury lasted for more than six months. Initially, the petition included allegations related to other vaccines and conditions, but the parties later stipulated to compensation specifically for CIDP allegedly sustained due to the Tdap vaccination. The respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Petitioner's CIDP or any other injury, and denied that his condition was a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these denials, the parties reached a joint stipulation for an award. Special Master Herbrina Sanders found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. The stipulation provided for a lump sum award of $190,500.00, payable to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Judgment was to be entered in accordance with the terms of the stipulation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Branch R. Lew alleged that the Tdap vaccine received on June 9, 2016, caused him to develop chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), which lasted more than six months. The respondent denied causation. The parties stipulated to an award of $190,500.00 for all damages. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, medical experts, clinical details of the injury, onset, symptoms, diagnostic tests, or treatments. The decision was made by Special Master Herbrina Sanders on December 2, 2021, based on a joint stipulation for award.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00679-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-12-02
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/29/2021) regarding 37 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (rig) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00679-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/02/21 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: October 29, 2021
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
BRANCH R. LEW, * No. 19-679V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation for Award;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Tetanus-Diphtheria-Acellular Pertussis
* (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Chronic Inflammatory
Respondent. * Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kathy A. Lee, Christie Farrell Lee & Bell, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, for Petitioner.
Colleen C. Hartley, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On May 8, 2019, Branch R. Lew (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant
to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2012).
Petitioner alleged that the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine3 he received on
June 9, 2016, caused him to suffer from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy
(“CIDP”). Pet. at 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner further alleged that his injury lasted for more than six
months. See id. ¶¶ 34–35.
On October 19, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision
should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 7. Respondent “denies that
the vaccine caused [P]etitioner’s alleged CIDP, or any other injury, and denies that his current
condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.” Id. ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the parties agree to the
joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. See id. ¶ 7. I find the stipulation reasonable and
1 This Decision shall be posted on the website of the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance
with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as
amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with
access to the Internet. As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 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).
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
3 Petitioner originally alleged that his CIDP resulted from all of the vaccinations he received on June 9,
2016, including the inactivated polio vaccine (“IPV”), Hepatitis B vaccine, Haemophilus influenzae type
B vaccine (“Hib”), and pneumococcal vaccine. See Pet. ¶ 2. However, the stipulation filed by the parties
indicates that the parties only agreed to compensation for CIDP allegedly sustained due to Petitioner’s
June 9, 2016 Tdap vaccination. See Stipulation ¶¶ 1–4, ECF No. 36.

Case 1:19-vv-00679-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/02/21 Page 2 of 7
adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
A lump sum of $190,500.00 in the form of a check payable to [P]etitioner. This
amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
Id. ¶ 8.
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s 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. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
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-00679-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/02/21 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00679-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/02/21 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00679-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/02/21 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00679-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/02/21 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00679-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/02/21 Page 7 of 7