{"package_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-01769","decision_granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-01769-cl6645610","petitioner_identifier":"Leslie Harrelson Brown","is_minor":1,"age_at_vaccination":0.17,"age_unit_raw":"years (62 days; DOB in source)","vaccine_type":"DPT","vaccination_date":"1985-06-17","condition_raw":"residual seizure disorder and encephalopathy","condition_category":"encephalitis_encephalopathy","autism_spectrum_adjacent":1,"outcome":"compensated","award_amount_usd":null,"decision_date":"1995-09-22","extraction_version":"gemini-v2","extracted_at":"2026-04-30T14:09:10.489112+00:00","number_of_concurrent_vaccines":1,"dose_number":1,"time_to_onset_days":0,"theory_of_causation":"Petitioners Judy and Leslie Brown filed a claim on behalf of their minor son, Leslie Harrelson Brown, alleging a vaccine-related residual seizure disorder and encephalopathy following DPT vaccinations on June 17, 1985, and September 4, 1985. The first vaccination at approximately two months of age was followed by a seizure, and the second vaccination was followed by high fever, constant crying, screaming, and choking spells. Special Master Laura D. Millman initially found entitlement for residual seizure disorder but not encephalopathy. However, she later concluded the seizure disorder was part of an encephalopathic process and, after Whitecotton, found both on-Table residual seizure disorder and encephalopathy. On remand following the Supreme Court's Whitecotton decision, the Special Master, relying heavily on Dr. Judith Fishbein's testimony and finding Leslie neurologically normal pre-vaccination and abnormal post-vaccination, concluded that encephalopathy onset occurred with the first post-DPT seizures, supported by decline in head circumference and developmental delay. Respondent's expert, Dr. Joel Herskowitz, was found less credible. Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller sustained the Special Master's decision, holding that seizures can be the first symptom or manifestation of encephalopathy when the total evidence supports it and no pre-vaccination encephalopathy exists, and that the Special Master's reevaluation was appropriate given evolving case law. The case was compensated, but the award amount is not stated in the public text.","is_death":0,"date_of_death":null,"petition_filed_date":null,"case_summary":"Judy and Leslie Brown filed a claim on behalf of their minor son, Leslie Harrelson Brown, who was born on April 16, 1985. On June 17, 1985, at approximately two months of age, Leslie received his first diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccination. Following this vaccination, he experienced a choking spell that was later diagnosed as a seizure. On September 4, 1985, after his second DPT vaccination, his mother reported that he developed a high fever, cried constantly, screamed, and had choking spells. By the age of ten, Leslie continued to experience seizures and suffered from encephalopathy. Petitioners sought compensation for both conditions, alleging they were vaccine-related. \n\nSpecial Master Laura D. Millman initially issued a decision on September 9, 1993, finding entitlement for a presumptively vaccine-related seizure disorder but not for vaccine-related encephalopathy, as she found no basis in the medical records or expert testimony to conclude that Leslie acquired symptoms of encephalopathy within three days after either DPT vaccination. This distinction led to a dispute over damages, as the parties could not agree on the extent to which Leslie's condition was attributable to the compensated seizure disorder versus the uncompensated encephalopathy. In an order dated December 7, 1993, the special master stated that the Secretary should compensate Leslie for all existing health problems, reasoning that his seizure disorder was part of an encephalopathic process. \n\nFollowing the Federal Circuit's decision in Whitecotton v. Secretary of DHHS, the special master issued a supplemental decision on September 16, 1994, reassessing her position. She concluded that Leslie had both an on-Table residual seizure disorder and an on-Table encephalopathy, citing Whitecotton as precedent for the irrelevance of pre-vaccination encephalopathy if the cause is unknown. \n\nAfter the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit in Shalala v. Whitecotton, holding that claimants must demonstrate no pre-vaccination symptoms of the same injury, the case was remanded to the special master. On remand, the special master relied heavily on the testimony of Dr. Judith Fishbein. She found that Leslie was neurologically normal before vaccination and neurologically abnormal afterward. Her findings, supported by Leslie's pre-vaccination normalcy, post-vaccination seizures, subsequent decline in head circumference, and developmental delay, led her to conclude that encephalopathy began with the choking spells or seizures on the evening of his first DPT vaccination. She found the respondent's expert, Dr. Joel Herskowitz, less credible on this issue. \n\nRespondent objected to the special master's decision, arguing that seizures alone cannot constitute the first symptom of encephalopathy and that the special master had improperly changed her position. Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller sustained the special master's decision. The court held that the special master had complied with the Supreme Court's Whitecotton ruling by finding no pre-vaccination encephalopathy. The court also found that the record contained more than seizures alone after the vaccinations and that the Vaccine Act did not bar a special master from finding, based on the totality of the evidence, that seizures were the first symptom or manifestation of encephalopathy. The court further held that the special master's reevaluation was understandable given the evolving legal rulings in Whitecotton. Compensation was sustained, although the staged opinion does not state the specific damages amount awarded.","is_minor_inferred":0,"is_pediatric_broad":1,"special_master":"Laura D. Millman","petitioner_identifier_original":null,"caption_petitioner_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_name":null,"petitioner_attorney_firm":null,"petitioner_attorney_location":null,"adjudicator_name":null,"caption_people_backfilled_at":null,"attorney_canonical_keys":null,"firm_canonical_key":null,"package_title":"Brown v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services","canonical_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-01769","plain_text_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-01769.txt","json_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-01769.json","source_documents":[{"granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-01769-cl6645610","title":"Brown v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services","docket_text":"lead-opinion","date_issued":"1995-09-22","pdf_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6762870/brown-v-secretary-of-the-department-of-health-human-services/","pdf_bytes":null,"triage_decision":"keep","triage_reason":"recovered via CL opinion 6645610 (html_with_citations)","download_status":"ok","registry_pdf_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-01769/USCOURTS-cofc-1_90-vv-01769-cl6645610"}]}