VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01345
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01345
Petitioner: Benjamin Harvey
Filed: 2025-01-02
Decided: 2025-02-05
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2017-10-10
Condition: migraines and new daily persistent headaches
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 80000

AI-assisted case summary:
On October 8, 2020, Candace Harvey and Shawn Harvey filed a petition on behalf of their then-minor son, Benjamin Harvey, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Benjamin Harvey was later substituted as the Petitioner upon reaching the age of majority. The Petitioner alleges that he received an influenza vaccine on October 10, 2017, and that this vaccine caused him to develop migraines and new daily persistent headaches, with residual effects lasting over six months. The Respondent denies that the Petitioner's alleged injuries or their residual effects were caused by the flu vaccine. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on December 30, 2024. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the court's decision. The stipulation awarded Benjamin Harvey a lump sum of $80,000.00, payable by check, as compensation for all damages. The petition was originally filed on January 2, 2025, and the decision awarding damages was issued on February 5, 2025. Petitioner counsel was Ronald C. Homer of Conway, Homer, P.C., and respondent counsel was Benjamin P. Warder of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Benjamin Harvey, who was a minor at the time of vaccination, received an influenza vaccine on October 10, 2017. He alleged that the vaccine caused him to develop migraines and new daily persistent headaches with residual effects lasting over six months. The Respondent denied causation. The parties settled the case via stipulation filed December 30, 2024, agreeing to an award of $80,000.00 for all damages. The Special Master adopted the stipulation as the decision. The theory of causation was "Off-Table" as indicated by the provided database fields, and the public decision does not detail the specific medical mechanism or expert testimony presented. The decision was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on February 5, 2025. Petitioner counsel was Ronald C. Homer, and respondent counsel was Benjamin P. Warder.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01345-0
Date issued/filed: 2025-02-05
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/02/2025) regarding 79 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01345-UNJ Document 83 Filed 02/05/25 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1345V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
BENJAMIN HARVEY, *
*
*
Petitioner, * Filed: January 2, 2025
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin P. Warder, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 8, 2020, Candace Harvey and Shawn Harvey filed a petition, on behalf of their
then-minor son, Benjamin Harvey, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Upon reaching the age of majority, Benjamin
Harvey was substituted as Petitioner herein. Petitioner alleges that he suffered migraines and new
daily persistent headaches that were caused-in-fact by his receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine
administered on October 10, 2017. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he experienced residual
effects of this injury for more than six months.
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s alleged injuries or their residual effects were caused-
in-fact by his receipt of the flu vaccine, and denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner any other
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-01345-UNJ Document 83 Filed 02/05/25 Page 2 of 7
injury or his current condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated
positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on December 30, 2024) that the issues between the shall 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 $80,000.00 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.

Case 1:20-vv-01345-UNJ Document 83 Filed 02/05/25 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01345-UNJ Document 83 Filed 02/05/25 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01345-UNJ Document 83 Filed 02/05/25 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01345-UNJ Document 83 Filed 02/05/25 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01345-UNJ Document 83 Filed 02/05/25 Page 7 of 7