{"package_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_91-vv-00103","decision_granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_91-vv-00103-cl6643365","petitioner_identifier":"Brandon Lee Thayer","is_minor":null,"age_at_vaccination":null,"age_unit_raw":null,"vaccine_type":"DPT","vaccination_date":"1984-01-03","condition_raw":"seizure disorder","condition_category":"seizure_disorder","autism_spectrum_adjacent":0,"outcome":"denied","award_amount_usd":null,"decision_date":"1992-08-03","extraction_version":"gemini-v2","extracted_at":"2026-04-30T14:09:44.819826+00:00","number_of_concurrent_vaccines":1,"dose_number":1,"time_to_onset_days":null,"theory_of_causation":"Petitioner alleged that DPT vaccinations on January 3, 1984, and January 21, 1984, caused a seizure disorder manifesting on April 14, 1984. The Special Master found that the second vaccination date was incorrect, determining DPT vaccinations occurred on January 3, 1984, February 21, 1984, and June 27, 1984. The Special Master also found the child was developmentally normal until April 4, 1985, well over a year after any vaccination. The Special Master denied compensation. Petitioner sought attorneys' fees, which the Special Master denied, finding no reasonable basis for the claim due to the incorrect vaccination dates alleged and the child's normal development well after the vaccination period. The court affirmed the Special Master's decision, finding it was not arbitrary or capricious. The public text does not describe the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the breakdown of any award, as compensation was denied and attorneys' fees were not awarded.","is_death":0,"date_of_death":null,"petition_filed_date":"1992-11-17","case_summary":"Brandon Lee Thayer, a minor, was the subject of a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The petitioner alleged that DPT vaccinations administered on January 3, 1984, and January 21, 1984, caused a seizure disorder that manifested on April 14, 1984. The Special Master conducted a hearing on entitlement to compensation. During the hearing, the petitioner testified that the second vaccination was actually administered on January 23, 1984. The Special Master, after considering the testimony and evidence, including a \"well-baby\" record, made several factual findings. The Special Master determined that Brandon did not receive a DPT vaccination on January 21 or January 23, 1984. Instead, the Special Master found that Brandon received DPT vaccinations on January 3, 1984, February 21, 1984, and June 27, 1984. Furthermore, the Special Master found that Brandon was developmentally normal until April 4, 1985, which was well over a year after any DPT vaccination. Based on these findings, the Special Master ruled from the bench that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation. Following this decision, the petitioner applied for attorneys' fees and costs. On June 9, 1992, the Special Master issued a decision denying the application for fees. The Special Master reasoned that there was no reasonable basis for the petitioner's claim that a vaccination was administered on January 21 or January 23, 1984, and therefore, attorneys' fees could not be awarded. The petitioner then filed a motion for review of the Special Master's Fee Decision with the court, asserting that the Special Master erred in failing to find that the claim had a reasonable basis and was brought in good faith. The court reviewed the Special Master's decision under the \"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law\" standard. The court affirmed the Special Master's factual findings regarding the dates of vaccination and Brandon's developmental progress. The court found that the Special Master had considered all relevant factors and made no clear error of judgment. The court also noted that the Special Master had expressed \"serious questions as to whether or not th[e] claim was pursued in good faith.\" Ultimately, the court denied the petitioner's motion for review and affirmed the Special Master's decision denying attorneys' fees, concluding that there was no reasonable basis to support the claim. The Clerk of the court was directed to enter judgment accordingly.","is_minor_inferred":1,"is_pediatric_broad":1,"special_master":null,"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":"Perez v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services","canonical_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_91-vv-00103","plain_text_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_91-vv-00103.txt","json_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_91-vv-00103.json","source_documents":[{"granule_id":"USCOURTS-cofc-1_91-vv-00103-cl6643365","title":"Perez v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services","docket_text":"lead-opinion","date_issued":"1992-11-17","pdf_url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6760671/perez-v-secretary-of-department-of-health-human-services/","pdf_bytes":null,"triage_decision":"keep","triage_reason":"recovered via CL opinion 6643365 (html_with_citations)","download_status":"ok","registry_pdf_url":"https://vicp-registry.org/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_91-vv-00103/USCOURTS-cofc-1_91-vv-00103-cl6643365"}]}