VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00779
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00779
Petitioner: Lauren Elwell
Filed: 2023-01-17
Decided: 2023-02-13
Vaccine: MMR
Vaccination date: 2020-07-23
Condition: chronic arthritis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 100000

AI-assisted case summary:
Lauren Elwell filed a petition on January 17, 2023, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered a Table Injury of chronic arthritis as a result of receiving the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on July 23, 2020, and that she experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that the MMR vaccine caused Petitioner's injury or any other condition, and also denied that her current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the case. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and adopted the parties' stipulation. The stipulation awarded Lauren Elwell a lump sum of $100,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages available under Section 15(a) of the Act. The decision was issued on February 13, 2023. Petitioner's counsel was Michael D. Sechrest of Warner, Sechrest & Butts, PA. Respondent's counsel was Nancy Tinch of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Lauren Elwell alleged a Table Injury of chronic arthritis following receipt of the MMR vaccine on July 23, 2020, with residual effects lasting more than six months. The respondent denied causation. The parties stipulated to settle the case, and Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation. The award was a lump sum of $100,000.00 for all damages under Section 15(a) of the Act. The decision date was February 13, 2023. Petitioner's counsel was Michael D. Sechrest, and respondent's counsel was Nancy Tinch. The specific medical mechanism, onset, symptoms, tests, treatments, and expert testimony were not described in the public decision, as the case was resolved by stipulation.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00779-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-02-13
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/17/2023) regarding 35 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (mva) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00779-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/13/23 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-779V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Chief Special Master Corcoran
LAUREN ELWELL, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: January 17, 2023
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael D. Sechrest, Warner, Sechrest & Butts, PA, Gainesville, FL, for Petitioner.
Nancy Tinch, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On January 21, 2021, Lauren Elwell filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that
she suffered a Table Injury of chronic arthritis as a result of her July 23, 2020 receipt of the
measles-mumps-rubella (“MMR”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that she experienced
residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States
Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). 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 whole decision will
be available to the public. 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).
1

Case 1:21-vv-00779-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/13/23 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that the MMR vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer a Table chronic
arthritis injury, or any other injury or condition. Respondent also denies that Petitioner’s current
condition is a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their
above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on January 5, 2023) that the issues before
them 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 $100,000.00 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 1:21-vv-00779-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/13/23 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00779-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/13/23 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00779-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/13/23 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00779-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/13/23 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:21-vv-00779-UNJ Document 38 Filed 02/13/23 Page 7 of 7