VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00684
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00684
Petitioner: Jamie Guy
Filed: 2020-06-05
Decided: 2024-04-29
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2017-07-23
Condition: encephalomyelitis/acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 75000

AI-assisted case summary:
On June 5, 2020, Jamie Guy filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Petitioner alleged that she received a Tdap vaccine on July 23, 2017, and subsequently developed encephalomyelitis/acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) caused by the vaccine, with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused any of the petitioner's alleged injuries or current condition. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties entered into a stipulation for settlement, agreeing that the issues could be resolved and that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the court. The stipulation awarded Jamie Guy a lump sum of $75,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner, as compensation for all damages. The court approved this award and directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly, unless a motion for review was filed. The decision was issued on April 29, 2024, based on a stipulation filed on April 3, 2024. Petitioner was represented by Sylvia Chin-Caplan of the Law Office of Sylvia Chin-Caplan, LLC, and respondent was represented by Naseem Kourosh of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jamie Guy alleged that a Tdap vaccine administered on July 23, 2017, caused encephalomyelitis/acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a stipulation for settlement, agreeing to an award of $75,000.00. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or clinical details supporting the alleged causation. The theory of causation is described as 'Off-Table' in the provided database fields, indicating it does not fall under a condition automatically presumed to be vaccine-related under the Vaccine Injury Table. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on April 29, 2024, based on a stipulation filed April 3, 2024. Petitioner's counsel was Sylvia Chin-Caplan, and respondent's counsel was Naseem Kourosh.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00684-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-04-29
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/03/2024) regarding 72 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-00684-UNJ Document 76 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-684V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
JAMIE GUY, * Chief Special Master Corcoran
*
Petitioner, * Filed: April 3, 2024
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sylvia Chin-Caplan, Law Office of Sylvia Chin-Caplan, LLC, Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Naseem Kourosh, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On June 5, 2020, Jamie Guy filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”). 2 Petitioner alleges that she
received a tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on July 23, 2017, and that she suffered
from encephalomyelitis/acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) that was caused in fact
by the vaccine. Petition (ECF No. 1) at 1–2. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that she experienced
residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused any of Petitioner’s alleged injuries, or any
other injury or Petitioner’s current condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their
above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on April 3, 2024) that the issues before them
1 "Under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen (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). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public
in its present form. Id."
2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:20-vv-00684-UNJ Document 76 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 7
could 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
(as attached hereto) 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 $75,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under Section 15(a) of the Act.
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/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:20-vv-00684-UNJ Document 76 Filed 04/29/24 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00684-UNJ Document 76 Filed 04/29/24 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00684-UNJ Document 76 Filed 04/29/24 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00684-UNJ Document 76 Filed 04/29/24 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-00684-UNJ Document 76 Filed 04/29/24 Page 7 of 7