VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00878 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00878 Petitioner: Jerry L. Bailey Filed: 2020-07-17 Decided: 2023-12-26 Vaccine: DTaP Vaccination date: 2018-02-19 Condition: Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 92000 AI-assisted case summary: Jerry L. Bailey filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 17, 2020. The petitioner alleged that she suffered Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) as a result of her Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccination administered on February 19, 2018. Ms. Bailey further alleged that she experienced residual effects of her condition for more than six months, that no prior award or settlement had been made for damages related to her condition, and that the vaccine was administered in the United States. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the DTaP or Tdap vaccines caused the petitioner's CIDP or any other injury, and denied that her current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation on November 30, 2023. Special Master Daniel T. Horner reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, Ms. Bailey was awarded a lump sum of $92,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages available under § 15(a). The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, clinical details of the condition, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the specific mechanism of causation. Petitioner was represented by Curtis R. Webb, and respondent was represented by Emily H. Manoso. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Jerry L. Bailey alleged that a February 19, 2018, DTaP vaccination caused her to develop Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP). The respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for compensation, which was adopted by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. The stipulation resulted in an award of $92,000.00. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused the CIDP. The award was based on a joint stipulation rather than a finding of causation after litigation. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-00878-0 Date issued/filed: 2023-12-26 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/30/2023) regarding 52 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Daniel T. Horner. (sh) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:20-vv-00878-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/26/23 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 20-878V Filed: November 30, 2023 JERRY L. BAILEY, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Curtis R. Webb, Monmouth, OR, for petitioner. Emily H. Manoso, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On July 17, 2020, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) as a result of her February 19, 2018 Tetanus-diphtheria- acellular pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccination. Petition at 1; Stipulation, filed November 30, 2023, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that she has experienced the residual effects of her condition for more than six months, that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of her condition, and that her vaccine was administered in the United States. Petition at 1-4; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5. “Respondent denies that the DTaP or Tdap vaccines caused petitioner’s CIDP or any other injury; and denies that his current condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6. 1 Because this document 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 document will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 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. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). Case 1:20-vv-00878-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/26/23 Page 2 of 7 Nevertheless, on November 30, 2023, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation, stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, I award the following compensation: A lump sum of $92,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages that would be available under § 15(a). Id. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Daniel T. Horner Daniel T. Horner Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review. 2 Case 1:20-vv-00878-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/26/23 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-00878-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/26/23 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-00878-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/26/23 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-00878-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/26/23 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:20-vv-00878-UNJ Document 56 Filed 12/26/23 Page 7 of 7