VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00914
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00914
Petitioner: Vivian Getman
Filed: 2014-09-15
Decided: 2015-03-19
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2010-10-26
Condition: CIDP versus Guillain-Barre syndrome [GBS]
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Vivian Getman filed a petition for vaccine compensation on December 26, 2012, alleging that the influenza vaccine she received on October 26, 2010, caused her to develop CIDP versus Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS). The petitioner was represented by Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq. of Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA. The respondent was represented by Althea Davis, Esq. of the U.S. Department of Justice. On August 28, 2014, the petitioner moved for a decision on the record, stating that she would not be filing a medical expert opinion. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen noted that to receive compensation, the petitioner must prove either a "Table Injury" or that her injuries were actually caused by the vaccine. The record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" or persuasive evidence that the injury was vaccine-caused. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical records, or any treatments. Because the petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to an award under the Program due to insufficient proof, the petition was dismissed on September 15, 2014. Subsequently, on February 26, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs. On March 19, 2015, Special Master Gowen awarded $26,600.00 in a lump sum, payable jointly to the petitioner and her counsel, for attorneys' fees and costs, finding the petition was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Vivian Getman alleged that an influenza vaccine received on October 26, 2010, caused her to develop CIDP versus Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS). The petition was filed on December 26, 2012. The petitioner moved for a decision on the record and stated she would not file a medical expert opinion. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen dismissed the petition on September 15, 2014, for insufficient proof, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate either a "Table Injury" or that the injury was "actually caused" by the vaccination. The public decision does not describe the specific mechanism of causation, name any medical experts, or detail the evidence presented. A stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs was filed on February 26, 2015, and on March 19, 2015, Special Master Gowen awarded $26,600.00 for fees and costs.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00914-0
Date issued/filed: 2014-10-10
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/15/2014) regarding 35 DECISION of Special Master (Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00914-UNJ Document 36 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-914V
Filed: September 15, 2014
(Not to be published)
***********************************************
VIVIAN GETMAN, *
*
Petitioner, * Dismissal Decision; Flu vaccine; CIDP;
v. * GBS; No Expert Report
*
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT *
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
***********************************************
Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq., Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, Fl, for
petitioner.
Althea Davis, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DISMISSAL DECISION1
Gowen, Special Master:
On December 26, 2012, petitioner filed a petition for Vaccine Compensation in
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [“the Program”],2 alleging that the
flu vaccine she received on October 26, 2010, caused her injuries diagnosed as CIDP
versus Guillain-Barre syndrome [GBS]. Petition at 1-2. The information in the record,
however, does not show entitlement to an award under the Program. On August 28,
2014, petitioner moved for a decision on the record and indicated within her motion that
she would not be filing a medical expert opinion in this matter. Petitioner’s Motion for
Decision on the Record, filed Aug. 28, 2014.
To receive compensation under the Program, petitioner must prove either 1) that
she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to post this
decision 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)). In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner have 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other
information, that satisfies the criteria in § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion
for redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits
within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material from public access.
2 The Program comprises 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. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter,
individual section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:12-vv-00914-UNJ Document 36 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 2
corresponding to her vaccination, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was actually
caused by a vaccine. See §§ 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). An examination of the record
did not uncover any evidence that petitioner suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the
record does not contain persuasive evidence indicating that petitioner’s alleged injury
was vaccine-caused.
Under the Act, petitioner may not be given a Program award based solely on the
petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either medical
records or by the opinion of a competent physician. § 13(a)(1). In this case, because
there are insufficient medical records supporting petitioner’s claim, a medical opinion
must be offered in support. Petitioner, however, has offered no such opinion that
supports a finding of entitlement.
Accordingly, it is clear from the record in this case that petitioner has failed to
demonstrate either that she suffered a “Table Injury” or that her injuries were “actually
caused” by a vaccination. Thus, this case is dismissed for insufficient proof. The
Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_12-vv-00914-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-03-19
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/26/2015) regarding 40 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Special Master Thomas L. Gowen.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:12-vv-00914-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 12-914V
Filed: February 26, 2015
(Not to be published)
***********************************************
VIVIAN GETMAN, *
*
Petitioner, * Stipulation; Attorneys’ Fees & Costs
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT *
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
***********************************************
Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq., Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, Fl, for
petitioner.
Althea Davis, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.
DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1
Gowen, Special Master:
In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 I issued
a decision dismissing the petition on September 15, 2014. On February 26, 2015, the
parties filed a Stipulation of Fact concerning attorneys’ fees and costs. Additionally,
pursuant to General Order #9, petitioner’s counsel asserted that petitioner incurred no
personal litigation costs in this matter. Id. at para. 4.
The parties’ stipulation indicates that respondent does not object to the amended
amount of $26,600.00 in attorneys’ fees and cost that petitioner is requesting.
I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a
reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate,
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend
to post this decision 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)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and
move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted
invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will
delete such material from public access.
2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.
(2006).

Case 1:12-vv-00914-UNJ Document 41 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 2
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems
reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award:
• A lump sum of $26,600.00 in the form of a check payable jointly to
petitioner and petitioner’s counsel of record, Diana Stadelnikas Sedar,
for petitioner’s attorney fees and costs.
The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas L. Gowen
Thomas L. Gowen
Special Master
3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
2