Cases

ORDER MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS, Judge On July 17, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion for redaction of all medical provider names from the Court’s June 30, 2017 Opinion and Order. Petitioner argues that, under the Vaccine Act, an individual’s estate has an expectation of privacy under the Vaccine Act in this type of sensitive medical information. Pet’r’s M

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act; 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e); Voluntary Dismissal; Attorney’s Fees and Costs; Totality of the Circumstances; Impending Statute of Limitations; Reasonable Basis for Claim. OPINION WILLIAMS, Judge. This vaccine injury case comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Review of the Special Master’s

OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. Petitioner Finnettia Garner initiated this action in January 2015, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (“Vaccine Act”), for injuries allegedly received from a Hepatitis A and B vaccination in December 2011. Ms. Garner claims that th

OPINION AND ORDER WOLSKI, Judge. Petitioners, [T.M. and R.R.M.], have moved for review of Special Master Brian H. Corcoran’s decision that they are not entitled to compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10—300aa-15 (Vaccine Act or Act). Petitioners assert that the Diptheria Tetanus acellular Pertussis (DTaP) vac

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act; Attorneys’ Fees. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LYDIA KAY GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner, Tanya Lynn Carter, as parent and legal representative of the estate of her deceased son, Z.J.C., seeks review of the January 10, 2017, decision of the special master d

OPINION AND ORDER MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS, Judge WILLIAMS, Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for review of the Special *785 Master’s decision denying her claim that the human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccine

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION ' Petitioner, Forrest Q. Spahn, seeks review of the September 11, 2014, decision of the special master denying his claim for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 to -34 (2012). Petitioner alleges that the tetanus-diphtheria (“Td”) vaccine that he received on June 19, 2007,

OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Petitioners Bo and Natalie DePena seek compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012), alleging that their son, R.D., 2 developed severe pneumonia as a result of a Measles-Mumps-Rubella (“M

Vaccine Act; Motion for Review; Vaccine Triggering Preexisting Disease; Weighing Expert Testimony; Treating Physician Testimony; Althen Causation Factors. OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REVIEW WHEELER, Judge. On June 24, 2015, then-Chief Special Master Denise K. Vowell issued a decision denying compensation to Petitioner Laura Holt (on behalf of her daughter, AH.T.) un

OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. The petitioners in this case are Laura Oliver and Eddie Oliver, Jr, They seek review of a decision issued under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (“Vaccine Act” or “Act”), as amended, dismissing their petition for compensation which they filed on behalf of their son, E.O. Ill (

Attorneys’ fees and costs in a vaccine case; lodestar approach applied to local rates for fees in Louisiana and Arkansas; reduction for attorneys’ time spent on paralegal and administrative tasks; reasonable rates for medical experts; documentation of costs OPINION AND ORDER 1 LETTOW, Judge.

Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-12, 300aa-15, 300aa-21; interim damages award upheld; cap on actual pain and suffering; election to accept damages; extreme financial hardship; Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. § 1. ORDER WOLSKI, Judge. In this matter, it is not disputed that the petitioners are entitled to compensation due to the vaccine

Vaccine Act; Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Reasonable Basis for Filing Petition; Affirmed in Part; Remanded in Part OPINION AFFIRMING IN PART AND REMANDING IN PART FIRESTONE, Senior Judge. This case comes before the court on petitioner Jeff Curran’s motion to review the decision of Special Master Corcoran to award only a portion of the at

National Vaccine Injury Act; HPV Vaccine; Defined and Recognized Injury; Application of Althen Test. OPINION HORN, J. On July 9, 2014, Petitioner Holly Lasnetski filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34 (2012) (the Vaccine Act). Special Master Lisa D. Hamilton-Fi

Vaccine Act; Attorneys’ Fees and. Costs; Reasonable Basis for Filing Petition OPINION REVERSING AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FIRESTONE, Senior Judge. This case comes before the court on the government’s motion for review of Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman’s decision to award $8,267.89 in attorney’s fees and costs to Ronald

Keywords: Vaccine Act; Contemporaneous Medical Records; Althen Test; Arbitrary and Capricious. OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN, Judge. This ease is before the Court on Petitioner Sydney Rich’s motion to review the special master’s decision denying compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 t

Entitlement; SCN1A Gene Mutation; Severe Myoclonic . Epilepsy of Infancy (“SMEI”); Dravet Syndrome; Seizure Disorder; Diptheria Tetanus acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”) Vaccine; Haemophi-lus Influenza Type B (“HiB”) Vaccine; Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (“Prevnar”); Rotavirus Vaccine; Significant Aggravation; Alternative Causation. OPINION SMITH, Senior Judge: Petitioners, Kimberly Faoro and Tyson

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 to -34 (2012); Vaccine Rule 23; Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis Vaccine; Measles, Mumps And Rubella Vaccine. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Petitioners, John A Murphy and Barbara E. Murphy, parents

Interim Attorney’s Fees; Change of Counsel. OPINION HORN. J. Acting through counsel, on January 12, 2015, Julie Reiling filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l to -34 (2012) (‘the Vaccine Act”). On April 21, 2016, while Ms. Reiling’s petition was pending before

National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“Vaccine Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-1 to -34 (2012). MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Petitioners, Grzegorz and Agnieszka Rus, parents of A.R., a minor child, seek review of the June 23, 2016, decision of the special master denying them claim for co