VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00691
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00691
Petitioner: Frances Chambers Gambo
Filed: 2013-09-17
Decided: 2015-07-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2010-10-01
Condition: Guillain-Barrè syndrome (GBS) or another demyelinating condition
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 175000

AI-assisted case summary:
Americo E. Gambo, as personal representative of the estate of Frances Chambers Gambo, filed a petition on September 17, 2013, alleging that an influenza (flu) vaccination Frances Gambo received in October 2010 caused her to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) or another demyelinating condition, and that GBS was a substantial factor in the cause of her death on December 4, 2011. Although petitioner was unable to locate documentary proof of vaccination, Special Master Corcoran found in a ruling dated December 18, 2014 that adequate proof of vaccination had been established through circumstantial evidence. Respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused Ms. Gambo's GBS or contributed to her death.

Nonetheless, both parties agreed to a joint stipulation filed March 12, 2015 to settle the case. Special Master Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Petitioner received a lump sum of $175,000.00, representing compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a), payable to the personal representative of the estate.

Theory of causation field:
Flu Oct 2010 → GBS (or demyelinating condition); GBS substantial factor in death Dec 4, 2011. Vaccination established through circumstantial evidence (ruling Dec 18, 2014). Joint stipulation Mar 12, 2015; SM Corcoran. Comp $175,000 to estate. Fees $30,281.77 (Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale PA, Washington DC).

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00691-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-02-02
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/18/2014) regarding 41 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 42 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-691V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
AMERICO E. GAMBO, as Personal *
Representative of the Estate of *
FRANCES CHAMBERS GAMBO, deceased, *
* Filed: December 18, 2014
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Fact Ruling; Proof of
* Vaccination; Influenza
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * (“Flu”) Vaccine
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle E. Strait, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Lisa A. Watts, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
FACT RULING ON PROOF OF VACCINATION1
CORCORAN, Special Master
In this petition, initially filed on September 17, 2013, Americo Gambo (representative of
the deceased vaccinee, Frances Chambers Gambo (Mr. Gambo’s spouse)) seeks to establish that
the influenza (“flu”) vaccine that Mrs. Gambo received in October of 2010 caused her to develop
some form of demyelinating injury which in turn resulted in her death on December 4, 2011.
However, Petitioner has been unable to locate documentary proof of vaccination, and now moves
1 Because this ruling 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 ruling will be available to the public.
Id.

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 42 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 6
(based on circumstantial evidence) for a fact finding that Mrs. Gambo did receive the flu vaccine
in October 2010. After my review of the evidence submitted and the parties’ briefs, I find that
Petitioner has established adequate proof of vaccination.
I. Factual Background
Petitioner alleges that Mrs. Gambo received a flu vaccine “in or about” October of 2010
somewhere in Maryland, although the precise circumstances surrounding her receipt of that
vaccination are clouded. See Amended Petition (ECF No. 14-1) at ¶ 1. By early January of 2011,
Mrs. Gambo went to her primary care physician, Dr. Anthony Serafis, in Lutherville, Maryland,
complaining of having experienced numbness and shooting pains in her feet for the prior month,
and also reported having experienced numbness in her hands over the week prior to her
appointment. Ex. 8 at 5. Later medical records similarly record Mrs. Gambo’s complaints of
paresthesias in her hands and feet that began sometime after Thanksgiving in 2010. Ex. 7 at 830.
Around that time, a treating physician opined that Mrs. Gambo’s symptoms suggested she might
be experiencing some kind of peripheral neuropathy. Ex. 8 at 5. After additional evaluation in
2011, Mrs. Gambo was eventually diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) and then
later Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy. Her health deteriorated throughout
the year until her death on December 4, 2011. Ex. 2.
Petitioner has been unable to offer direct proof of Mrs. Gambo’s receipt of vaccination.
Instead, he has provided circumstantial evidence that, taken together, provides a narrative by
recollection to establish that the flu vaccine was administered to Mrs. Gambo. Thus, Petitioner
has offered his own affidavit in which he swears under penalty of perjury that his wife informed
him of her receipt of the flu vaccination sometime in October 2010. See Affidavit of Americo
Gambo, dated May 16, 2014 (attached to ECF No. 26) (“Gambo Aff.”) at ¶¶ 6-7. He specifically
recalls this because it was around the time of the Gambos’s wedding anniversary (and, in fact, he
avers that Mrs. Gambo told him the vaccination was an anniversary gift to him). Id. He also
references numerous instances in Mrs. Gambo’s medical records that refer to the vaccination as
having occurred. See Petitioner’s Motion for Finding of Fact, dated September 29, 2014 (ECF
No. 36) at 4-7.
In addition, Petitioner has offered two statements from a physician, Dr. Elizabeth
Schlenoff that supports his contention that Ms. Gambo received the vaccination in question.
Although Dr. Schlenoff was not Mrs. Gambo’s primary care physician, the medical records
corroborate that she sent Mrs. Gambo for certain testing (including an MRI) in early 2011,
contemporaneously with the time Mrs. Gambo first saw her primary care physician, Dr. Serafis,
regarding the symptoms that she was experiencing. See generally Ex. 8.
2

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 42 Filed 02/02/15 Page 3 of 6
The first is an unsworn statement dated July 15, 2014. Ex. 12 (ECF No. 34). In it, Dr.
Schlenoff states that she recalls seeing Mrs. Gambo as a patient at some unspecified time and
that she considered Mrs. Gambo’s condition to be “stunning” from a neurologic standpoint. See
generally Letter, dated July 15, 2014 (ECF No. 34). She also specifically recalls receiving by
facsimile transmission proof of the vaccination in question from a pharmacy, and placing it in
Ms. Gambo’s chart, but she was unable to locate the record in her files, which are presently
maintained in her home. Id.
The second statement comes in the form of a declaration, which provides more detail
about the context in which Mrs. Gambo saw Dr. Schlenoff. See December 2, 2014 declaration
(ECF No. 40) (“Schlenoff Declaration”). Dr. Schlenoff notes in it that she was Petitioner’s
primary care physician, rather than Mrs. Gambo’s, but (after learning from him of Mrs. Gambo’s
illness) saw Mrs. Gambo in January 2011 and was responsible for sending Mrs. Gambo for some
of the neurologic testing that later resulted in her GBS diagnosis. Schlenoff Declaration at ¶¶ 5-8.
In the course of filing some old medical records in March 2011, Dr. Schlenoff indicated that she
came across a physical document from a local pharmacy memorializing Mrs. Gambo’s receipt of
vaccination. Id. at ¶ 9. Dr. Schlenoff speculates that the pharmacy may have mistakenly sent her
the proof of vaccination based upon her existing doctor-patient relationship with Mr. Gambo. Id.
II. Procedural History
After filing the petition in September of 2013, Mr. Gambo filed documents certifying his
legal status as the representative of Mrs. Gambo’s estate. See ECF No. 4 & 6. He subsequently
filed a number of medical records, while attempting via subpoena to obtain additional records
not in his possession. See, e.g., ECF No. 17 & 20.
On May 28, 2014, Petitioner filed a Statement of Completion (ECF No. 28), but in so
doing acknowledged that proof of vaccination was still elusive. The next day, Mr. Gambo moved
to strike the May 28th filing, noting that he had learned of the existence of Dr. Schlenoff, who
likely possessed records substantiating the vaccination. ECF No. 29. Thereafter, from June until
August of this past summer, Petitioner continued his efforts to obtain such evidence, requesting
the issuance of an additional subpoena for this purpose. See ECF No. 29 & 32.
On September 29, 2014, Petitioner filed the present motion based on the record he had
been able to generate (ECF No. 36), and Respondent opposed the motion on October 6, 2014
(ECF No. 38). During an October 30, 2014 status conference, I requested that Petitioner
supplement the existing record in support of his motion – mainly by obtaining a more detailed
statement from Dr. Schlenoff to fill in some of the blanks in Petitioner’s narrative. ECF No. 39.
Petitioner subsequently filed a declaration from Dr. Schlenoff on December 2, 2014 (ECF No.
3

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 42 Filed 02/02/15 Page 4 of 6
40), and then I held a follow-up status conference on December 10, 2014, during which
Respondent declined to further address the merits of the matter and requested that I issue a
ruling. This matter is now ripe for adjudication.
III. Analysis
A Vaccine Act petitioner must, as a threshold matter in advancing a claim for damages,
establish by a preponderance of the evidence receipt of “a vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury
Table.” § 300aa–11(c)(1)(A). The preponderance of the evidence standard means that an
allegation is established to be “more likely than not.” Moberly v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Although contemporaneous documentation of vaccination from a healthcare provider is
the best evidence that a vaccination occurred, it is not absolutely required in all cases.
Centmehaiey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 32 Fed. Cl. 612, 621 (1995) (“[t]he lack of
contemporaneous documentary proof of a vaccination . . . does not necessarily bar recovery”).
Indeed, as Vaccine Rule 2 states, “[i]f the required medical records are not submitted, the
petitioner must include an affidavit detailing the efforts made to obtain such records and the
reasons for their unavailability.” Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(B)(i). Furthermore, if a petitioner’s claim
is “based in any part on the observations or testimony of any person, the petitioner should
include the substance of each person's proposed testimony in a detailed affidavit(s) supporting all
elements of the allegations made in the petition.” Vaccine Rule 2(c)(2)(B)(ii).
Special masters have thus found that vaccine administration occurred even in the absence
of direct documentation. In such cases, preponderant evidence was provided in the form of other
medical records and/or witness testimony. For example, corroborative, though backward-
looking, medical notations have been found to tip the evidentiary scale in favor of vaccine
receipt. Lamberti v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs, No. 99–507V, 2007 WL 1772058, at *7
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 31, 2007) (finding multiple medical record references to vaccine
receipt constituted adequate evidence of administration); Groht v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs, No. 00–287V, 2006 WL 3342222, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 30, 2006) (finding a
treating physician's note—“4/30/97—Hep B. inj. # 1 (not given here) (pt. wanted this to be
charted)”—to be sufficient proof of vaccination); Wonish v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
No. 90–667V, 1991 WL 83959, at *4 (Cl. Ct. Spec. Mstr. May 6, 1991) (finding parental
testimony “corroborated strongly by medical records [referring] back to the [vaccination]” to be
sufficient to establish vaccine administration).
In addition to corroborative medical records, witness testimony can also help establish a
sufficient basis for a finding that a vaccine was administered as alleged. Alger v. Sec’y of Health
4

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 42 Filed 02/02/15 Page 5 of 6
& Human Servs, No. 89–31V, 1990 WL 293408, at *2, 7 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 14, 1990)
(oral testimony from a parent and the doctor who administered the vaccine was “more than
adequate to support a finding that the vaccine was administered”). The Court of Federal Claims
has recognized the existence of precedent supporting the proposition that a court may base a
finding of vaccination on lay testimony. Epstein v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 35 Fed. Cl.
467, 478 (Fed. Cl. 1996); see also Brown v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 18 Cl. Ct. 834,
839–40 (1989) (proof of vaccination in the absence of contemporaneous medical records
established via testimony of petitioner’s parent, her personal calendar, and evidence of a charge
for the vaccine on the physician's billing statement), rev’d on other grounds, 920 F.2d 918 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
In the present case, Petitioner has marshaled ample circumstantial evidence in support of
his contention that Mrs. Gambo more likely than not received the flu vaccine in October of 2010.
He has identified multiple references in Mrs. Gambo’s treatment record that not only mention the
prior vaccination but also link it to her illness as a possible cause. In addition, Petitioner has
offered his own affidavit in which he swears under penalty of perjury that his wife informed him
of her vaccination. I find that Mr. Gambo has provided a plausible explanation for why he
remembers her telling him of the vaccination (i.e., the fact that the Gambos’s anniversary was
around the same time, and he had previously urged her to obtain a flu vaccine).
The statements from Dr. Schlenoff bulwark the above. She avers to have seen a physical
copy of the vaccination record (although she has no contemporaneous knowledge of the actual
vaccine administration). Although Dr. Schlenoff was only involved in Mrs. Gambo’s care to a
limited extent, she observed her symptoms around the time Mrs. Gambo visited Dr. Serafis, and
Dr. Schlenoff’s role in Mrs. Gambo’s treatment is corroborated by the medical record.
Respondent raises some reasonable objections to this evidence generally. The medical
record contains no references to the vaccination before the spring of 2011, and it does not appear
that Mrs. Gambo told Dr. Serafis or Dr. Schlenoff that she received the vaccination. But there are
many backward-looking references to the vaccination in the recorded treatment history,
suggesting that Mrs. Gambo or Petitioner recounted the fact to the treating physicians. In
addition, Petitioner has offered statements from two third parties – himself and Dr. Schlenoff –
that taken together provide additional circumstantial support that Respondent has not rebutted.
Accordingly, there is therefore enough circumstantial evidence in the record to suggest that Mrs.
Gambo received a flu vaccination in the month Petitioner alleges.
I do not find, however, that Petitioner has established a precise date or half of the month
when the vaccination actually occurred. As Respondent points out, the sole evidence offered to
establish this aspect of Petitioner’s argument is Mr. Gambo’s affidavit, in which he recalls a
hearsay statement made by Mrs. Gambo about having received the vaccination. While I am
5

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 42 Filed 02/02/15 Page 6 of 6
willing to credit Mr. Gambo’s overall recollection of the fact of vaccination, there remains
insufficient evidence to pinpoint a precise date in October when the vaccination was
administered. Indeed, at best Mr. Gambo’s affidavit only establishes that he learned of the
vaccination in the second half of October 2010. Gambo Aff. at ¶ 6. He surmises it occurred
during that time period because of the date of their anniversary, but the basis for his hunch (“the
way she phrased it”) is too insubstantial to rely upon, especially in the absence of any other
corroborative proof.
CONCLUSION
Based upon my review of the record, including the affidavits and witness statements, and
the legal arguments of the parties, I find that Petitioner has established by preponderant evidence
that Mrs. Gambo received the influenza vaccination on an unspecified date in October 2010.
Petitioner has thus satisfied his burden as to receipt of a vaccine listed on the Vaccine Injury
Table within the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa11(C)(1)(A) and (B).
This ruling makes no determination of any kind as to whether Mrs. Gambo’s alleged
damages are a result of an adverse reaction to the flu vaccination. That will be the subject of
future proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00691-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-07-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/20/2015) Regarding 53 DECISION Fees Stipulation Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 56 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-691V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
AMERICO E. GAMBO, * Filed: May 20, 2015
as Personal Representative of the Estate of *
FRANCES CHAMBERS GAMBO, *
deceased, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
Petitioner, * Fees and Costs
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Lisa Watts, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On September 17, 2013, Americo E. Gambo filed a petition, as personal representative of
the estate of Frances Chambers Gambo, deceased, seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Although Petitioner was unable to locate documentary
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 fourteen (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.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 through 34 (2006))
[hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 56 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 2
proof of vaccination, I found (in a ruling dated December 18, 2014) that Petitioner had established
adequate proof of vaccination based on circumstantial evidence. Fact Ruling on Proof of
Vaccination (ECF No. 41). Thereafter, on March 12, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation settling
the case and detailing the amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision
finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner an award as outlined in the
stipulation. Decision Awarding Damages, dated Mar. 17, 2015 (ECF No. 47).
On May 14, 2015, the parties filed another stipulation, this time regarding attorney’s fees
and costs. ECF No. 52. Petitioner requests reimbursement of attorney’s fees in the amount of
$27,875.00 and attorney’s costs in the amount of $2,406.77. Id. These amounts represent sums to
which Respondent does not object. Id. In addition, and in compliance with General Order No. 9,
Petitioner represent that he has not personally incurred any expenses in litigating this case.
Petitioner’s Statement Regarding Fees and Costs, dated May 14, 2015 (ECF No. 51).
I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award of $30,281.77 should be made in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioner and
Petitioner’s counsel, Danielle A. Strait, Esq. Payment of this amounts represents all attorney’s fees
and costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 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.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 each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00691-2
Date issued/filed: 2015-07-28
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 03/17/2015) Regarding 47 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-691V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
AMERICO E GAMBO, * Filed: March 17, 2015
as Personal Representative of the Estate of *
FRANCES CHAMBERS GAMBO, *
deceased, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
Petitioner, * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
* Guillain-Barrè Syndrome (“GBS”)
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle Strait, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Lisa Watts, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 17, 2013, Americo E. Gambo filed a petition, as personal representative of
the estate of Frances Chambers Gambo, deceased, seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that as a result of receiving the
influenza (“flu”) vaccine in October of 2010, Frances Gambo developed Guillain-Barrè syndrome
(“GBS”) or another demyelinating condition. Petitioner further contends that Ms. Gambo’s GBS
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 fourteen (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.
2 The National Vaccine Injury Compensation 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.A. ' 300aa-10 to 34 (2006)) [hereinafter
“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”]. Individual sections references hereafter will be to ' 300aa of the Act.

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 7
(or other demyelinating condition) was a substantial factor in the cause of her death on December
4, 2011. Although Petitioner was unable to locate documentary proof of vaccination, I found (in a
ruling dated December 18, 2014) that Petitioner established adequate proof of vaccination based
on circumstantial evidence. Fact Ruling on Proof of Vaccination (ECF No. 41).
Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused Ms. Gambo’s GBS, or any other injury, or
was a substantial factor in the cause of her death. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their
above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed March 12, 2015) that the issues before them
could 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
(as attached hereto) is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the
terms set forth therein.
The stipulation awards:
 A lump sum of $175,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner as personal
representative of the estate of Frances Chambers Gambo.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under 42 U.S.C. ' 300aa-15(a).
I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amounts set forth above to be made
to Petitioner. 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 each filing (either jointly or separately)
a notice renouncing their right to seek review.
2

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00691-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/28/15 Page 7 of 7