VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00154
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00154
Petitioner: Henry Nolde
Filed: 2014-07-22
Decided: 2014-10-22
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2011-11-09
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 231125

AI-assisted case summary:
Henry Nolde, an adult, received an influenza vaccine on November 9, 2011. He subsequently developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), which led to his death on March 14, 2012. His estate, represented by his son Ronald Nolde, filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Nolde's GBS or related medical problems. However, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation. The court adopted the stipulation, awarding the estate a lump sum of $200,000.00 for all damages. Subsequently, the parties filed another stipulation regarding attorneys' fees and costs, agreeing to an award of $31,000.00 for counsel and $125.00 for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the petitioner. The court approved these amounts, directing judgment to be entered accordingly.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00154-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-08-21
Pages: 8
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/22/2014) regarding 55 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 59 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 8
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-154V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
The Estate of HENRY NOLDE by and *
through his son RONALD NOLDE, as * Filed: July 22, 2014
Personal Representative, *
*
Petitioner, * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;Guillain-Barré
v. * Syndrome (GBS)
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Isaiah R. Kalinowski, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Tara J. Kilfoyle, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On March 6, 2012, Petitioner Henry Nolde filed a petition seeking compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Following Mr.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the United
States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, §
205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). 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 14 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 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is set forth in Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10-' 300aa-34
(West 1991 & Supp. 2002). All citations in this decision to individual sections of the Vaccine Act are to 42 U.S.C.A.
' 300aa.

Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 59 Filed 08/21/14 Page 2 of 8
Nolde’s death on March 14, 2012, Ronald Nolde (as personal representative for the estate of
Henry Nolde) was substituted as petitioner, and an amended petition was filed on June 26, 2012.
Petitioner alleges that Henry Nolde suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of
receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on November 9, 2011.
Respondent denies that Henry Nolde’s GBS or any related medical problems were caused
by the receipt of the flu vaccine. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated
positions, agreed in a stipulation filed July 22, 2014 that the issues before them can 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 is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms
set forth therein.
The stipulation awards:
a) A lump sum of $200,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner as
legal representative of the estate of Henry Nolde. This amount represents
compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. §300aa-
15(a).
Stipulation ¶ 8.
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made
to Petitioners. 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
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly (or separately) filing
notice(s) renouncing their right to seek review.

Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 59 Filed 08/21/14 Page 3 of 8

Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 59 Filed 08/21/14 Page 4 of 8

Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 59 Filed 08/21/14 Page 5 of 8

Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 59 Filed 08/21/14 Page 6 of 8

Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 59 Filed 08/21/14 Page 7 of 8

Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 59 Filed 08/21/14 Page 8 of 8

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00154-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-10-22
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/26/2014) regarding 62 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 66 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-154V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
The Estate of HENRY NOLDE, * Filed: September 26, 2014
by and through his Son, *
RONALD NOLDE, as Personal Representative, *
*
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’
v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Isaiah R. Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA (D.C.), for Petitioner.
Tara Kilfoyle, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On March 6, 2012, Henry Nolde filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Following Henry Nolde’s death on March 14, 2012,
Ronald Nolde (as personal representative of the estate of Henry Nolde) was substituted as
Petitioner, and an amended petition was filed on June 26, 2012. On July 22, 2014, the parties
filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a
decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award
outlined by the stipulation.
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, it will be posted on the website of
the United States Court of Federal Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347,
§ 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. To
do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) provides that each party has 14 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 decision will be available to the
public. Id.

Case 1:12-vv-00154-UNJ Document 66 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 2
On September 25, 2014, counsel for both parties filed another stipulation, this time
regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should
receive a lump sum of $31,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s
counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. Additionally, the
parties have stipulated that Petitioner incurred $125.00 in pursuit of this claim (paid to local
estate counsel), and thus Petitioner should receive a lump sum of $125, in a check payable to
Petitioner himself.
I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as the requested
amount for Petitioner’s out-of-pocket expenses, as reasonable. Accordingly, an award of
$31,000.00 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s
counsel, Isaiah Kalinowski, Esq., which shall be forwarded to the main offices of Maglio,
Christopher & Toale, located at 1605 Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236; and an
award of $125.00 should be made in the form of a check payable to the Petitioner. In the absence
of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL
ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
2 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