VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01853
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01853
Petitioner: Robert P. Dipietro
Filed: 2019-12-09
Decided: 2021-12-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-02-08
Condition: chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 45000

AI-assisted case summary:
Robert P. Dipietro filed a petition on December 9, 2019, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) as a result of an influenza vaccination received on February 8, 2017. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner's alleged CIDP or any other injury. Despite these positions, both parties agreed to settle the issues and enter a decision awarding compensation. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the file and adopted the parties' stipulation as her decision. The stipulation awarded a lump sum of $45,000.00, payable to Petitioner, for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The decision, dated December 3, 2021, directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly. Petitioner's counsel was Howard Gold, and respondent's counsel was Ida Nassar. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, medical tests, treatments, or expert testimony. The theory of causation is not detailed in the public decision.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Robert P. Dipietro alleged that an influenza vaccine administered on February 8, 2017, caused him to develop chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a joint stipulation to settle the matter, and Special Master Katherine E. Oler adopted this stipulation. The stipulation resulted in a decision awarding Petitioner $45,000.00 in damages. The public decision does not specify the medical mechanism of injury, name any experts, or detail the evidence considered, stating only that the parties agreed to settle. The decision date was December 3, 2021. Petitioner was represented by Howard Gold, and Respondent by Ida Nassar.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01853-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-12-03
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/12/2021) regarding 29 DECISION of Special Master - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01853-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1853V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
ROBERT P. DIPIETRO,
*
* Filed: October 12, 2021
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Chronic
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Inflammatory Demyelinating
HUMAN SERVICES, * Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”).
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Howard Gold, Gold Law Firm, Wellesley Hills, MA, for Petitioner
Ida Nassar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On December 9, 2019, Robert Dipietro (“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 chronic inflammatory
demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) as a result of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination he received
on February 8, 2017. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated October 12, 2021 (ECF No. 28); see also Petition.
Respondent denies “that the flu vaccine caused or significantly aggravated petitioner’s
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-01853-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 7
alleged CIDP or any other injury or condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties,
while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation filed October 12, 2021 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 $45,000.00 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-01853-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01853-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01853-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01853-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:19-vv-01853-UNJ Document 35 Filed 12/03/21 Page 7 of 7