VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00522
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00522
Petitioner: Joseph Hegedus
Filed: 2022-05-11
Decided: 2024-09-24
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-08-25
Condition: Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 110000

AI-assisted case summary:
Joseph Hegedus filed a petition on May 11, 2022, alleging that the influenza vaccine he received on August 25, 2020, caused him to develop Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP). The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Hegedus's injury or any other condition. Despite this denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation on September 24, 2024, agreeing to award compensation to Mr. Hegedus. Special Master Herbrina Sanders found the stipulation to be reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the court. Mr. Hegedus was awarded a lump sum of $110,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages. The case was resolved via stipulation, with the respondent denying causation but agreeing to the award. Petitioner's counsel was Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent's counsel was Katherine Carr Esposito. The public decision does not describe the onset, symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Joseph Hegedus alleged that the influenza vaccine administered on August 25, 2020, caused him to develop Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP). The respondent denied that the vaccine caused the alleged injury or any other condition. The parties reached a stipulation for compensation, with the respondent denying causation. The case was resolved by joint stipulation on September 24, 2024, with Special Master Herbrina Sanders adopting the stipulation as the court's decision. Petitioner was awarded a lump sum of $110,000.00. The theory of causation was not explicitly stated as being on or off the Vaccine Injury Table in the provided text, but the respondent's denial of causation suggests it was not a per se Table case. No specific medical experts or mechanisms of injury were detailed in the public decision. Petitioner was represented by Leah VaSahnja Durant, and respondent was represented by Katherine Carr Esposito.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_22-vv-00522-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-10-22
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 9/24/2024) regarding 34 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Herbrina Sanders. (krt) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:22-vv-00522-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/22/24 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
Filed: September 24, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JOSEPH HEGEDUS, * No. 22-522V
*
Petitioner, * Special Master Sanders
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington DC, for Petitioner.
Katherine Carr Esposito, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On May 11, 2022, Joseph Hegedus (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation pursuant
to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 to -34 (2018).
Petitioner alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on August 25, 2020, caused him
to suffer from Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”). Pet. at 1, ECF No.
1.
On September 24, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation in which they state that a decision
should be entered awarding compensation to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 7, ECF No. 33. Respondent
“denies that [P]etitioner’s alleged injury, including [Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)] and/or
CIDP or its residual effects, were caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine; and denies the flu vaccine
caused [P]etitioner any other injury or [P]etitioner’s current condition.” Id. ¶ 6. Nevertheless, the
parties agree to the joint stipulation. See id. ¶ 7. I find the stipulation reasonable and adopt it as
the decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
1 Because this Decision 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 Decision 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.

Case 1:22-vv-00522-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/22/24 Page 2 of 7
The parties stipulate that Petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
A lump sum of $110,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Id. ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
I approve the requested amount for Petitioner’s compensation. Accordingly, an award
should be made consistent with the stipulation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of
Court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herbrina D. Sanders
Herbrina D. Sanders
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:22-vv-00522-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/22/24 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:22-vv-00522-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/22/24 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:22-vv-00522-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/22/24 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:22-vv-00522-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/22/24 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:22-vv-00522-UNJ Document 38 Filed 10/22/24 Page 7 of 7