VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00878
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00878
Petitioner: Richard E. Dean, Sr.
Filed: 2012-12-14
Decided: 2014-08-26
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
On December 14, 2012, Richard E. Dean, Sr. filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner's GBS or any other injury. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on August 1, 2014. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision in awarding damages. The stipulation awarded a lump sum of $50,000.00, payable to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages. Additionally, the parties stipulated to attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $17,250.00, payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner's counsel, Diana S. Sedar. Special Master Corcoran approved this amount for attorneys' fees and costs. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Petitioner was represented by Diana S. Sedar of Maglio, Christopher & Toale, and Respondent was represented by Tara J. Kilfoyle of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Richard E. Dean, Sr. alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation filed August 1, 2014. The stipulation awarded Petitioner $50,000.00 for all damages. Attorneys' fees and costs were stipulated at $17,250.00, payable jointly to Petitioner and counsel Diana S. Sedar. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran approved the stipulation and awarded damages and fees on August 4, 2014 (decision issued August 26, 2014). The specific medical mechanism or expert testimony regarding causation was not detailed in the public decision, as the case was resolved by stipulation.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00878-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-08-26
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/4/2014) regarding 34 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00878-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-878V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
RICHARD E. DEAN, SR., *
* Filed: August 4, 2014
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barré
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * syndrome (GBS)
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana S. Sedar, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Tara J. Kilfoyle, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 14, 2012, Richard E. Dean filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges
that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”)
vaccination.
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s GBS or any other injury were caused by the receipt of
the flu vaccine. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed
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-00878-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/26/14 Page 2 of 7
in a stipulation filed August 1, 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 $50,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. 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-00878-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/26/14 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:12-vv-00878-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/26/14 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:12-vv-00878-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/26/14 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:12-vv-00878-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/26/14 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:12-vv-00878-UNJ Document 41 Filed 08/26/14 Page 7 of 7

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00878-1
Date issued/filed: 2014-08-26
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/4/2014) regarding 35 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00878-UNJ Document 42 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-878V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
RICHARD E. DEAN, SR., *
* Filed: August 4, 2014
Petitioner, *
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Fees and Costs
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana S. Sedar, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Tara J. Kilfoyle, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On December 14, 2012, Richard E. Dean filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On August 4, 2014, I issued a decision finding
the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting the Petitioner the award outlined by the
stipulation.
On August 1, 2014, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time
regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should
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. To do so, Vaccine Rule 18(b) permit each party 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-00878-UNJ Document 42 Filed 08/26/14 Page 2 of 2
receive a lump sum of $17,250.00 in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and
Petitioner’s counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In
addition, in accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a statement on August 1, 2014,
indicating that he had incurred no reimbursable costs in pursuit of his claim.
I approve the requested amount for attorneys’ fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award should be made in the form of a check jointly payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s
counsel, Diana S. Sedar, Esq., in the amount of $17,250.00. 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 filing (jointly or separately) notices
renouncing their right to seek review.