VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00884
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00884
Petitioner: Antonio Illiano
Filed: 2019-06-17
Decided: 2023-07-05
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2017-04-20
Condition: optic neuritis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 25000

AI-assisted case summary:
Antonio Illiano filed a petition on June 17, 2019, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from optic neuritis and its residual effects as a result of a Tdap vaccination he received on April 20, 2017. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Mr. Illiano's optic neuritis or any other injury. Despite this denial, both parties agreed to settle the case through a joint stipulation filed on May 23, 2023. The stipulation stated that the issues could be resolved and that Mr. Illiano should be awarded compensation. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the court's decision. The stipulation awarded Mr. Illiano a lump sum of $25,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner, as compensation for all damages. The court approved this award and directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Ronald Homer represented the petitioner, and Julia Collison represented the respondent. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Antonio Illiano alleged that a Tdap vaccination received on April 20, 2017, caused optic neuritis. The respondent denied causation. The parties resolved the case via joint stipulation, agreeing that the issues could be settled and compensation awarded. The stipulation did not detail a specific theory of causation or name any experts. Special Master Katherine E. Oler adopted the stipulation, awarding $25,000.00 in a lump sum to the petitioner. The public decision does not describe the mechanism of injury or provide further details on the medical evidence or expert testimony presented.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00884-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-07-05
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/23/2023) regarding 61 DECISION of Special Master - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00884-UNJ Document 65 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-884V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
ANTONIO ILLIANO,
*
* Filed: May 23, 2023
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Acellular
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Pertussis (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Optic
HUMAN SERVICES, * Neuritis (“ON”).
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald Homer, Conway Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner
Julia Collison, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On June 17, 2019, Antonio Illiano (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF
No. 1. Petitioner alleges he suffered from optic neuritis (“ON”) and residual effects as a result of
the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination he received on April 20, 2017.
See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated May 23, 2023 (ECF No. 60); see also Petition.
Respondent denies “that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner to experience optic neuritis, or
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted
on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. §
3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As
provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of
certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen
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). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available. Id.
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L.
No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter
“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the
pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa.

Case 1:19-vv-00884-UNJ Document 65 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 7
any other injury or petitioner’s current condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 5. Nonetheless, both parties,
while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed May 23, 2023 that the
issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner
compensation.
I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation
is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth
therein.
The stipulation awards:
a lump sum of $25,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This award represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to
Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of
the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine E. Oler
Katherine E. Oler
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice
renouncing their right to seek review.

Case 1:19-vv-00884-UNJ Document 65 Filed 07/05/23 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00884-UNJ Document 65 Filed 07/05/23 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00884-UNJ Document 65 Filed 07/05/23 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00884-UNJ Document 65 Filed 07/05/23 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-00884-UNJ Document 65 Filed 07/05/23 Page 7 of 7