VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00941 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00941 Petitioner: Louis R. Brockington Filed: 2013-11-27 Decided: 2014-06-19 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 160000 AI-assisted case summary: Louis R. Brockington filed a petition on November 27, 2013, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and related complications as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the respondent, denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Brockington's GBS and any related medical problems. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed in a stipulation filed on May 27, 2014, that the issues could be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding compensation to Mr. Brockington. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and concluded that the parties' stipulation was reasonable, adopting it as his decision. The stipulation awarded Mr. Brockington a lump sum of $160,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner, as compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). On July 8, 2014, counsel for both parties filed a joint stipulation regarding attorneys' fees and costs. This stipulation proposed an award of $10,819.65 to Mr. Brockington's counsel, James M. Griffin, Esq., payable by check jointly to the petitioner and his counsel. Special Master Corcoran approved this stipulation on July 29, 2014, finding the amount reasonable. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or the mechanism of causation. Petitioner was represented by James M. Griffin of Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, L.L.P., and respondent was represented by Justine Daigneault of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Louis R. Brockington alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and related complications as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine. The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, and Special Master Brian H. Corcoran approved an award of $160,000.00 for all damages. Petitioner's counsel was James M. Griffin, and respondent's counsel was Justine Daigneault. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused GBS. The award was based on a stipulation, not a finding of causation after litigation. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00941-0 Date issued/filed: 2014-06-19 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/28/2014) regarding 18 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-941V (Not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LOUIS R. BROCKINGTON, * * Petitioner, * Filed: May 28, 2014 * v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James M. Griffin, Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, L.L.P., Columbia, SC, for Petitioner. Justine Daigneault, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On November 27, 2013 Petitioner Louis R. Brockington 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”) and related 1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will 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)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published 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 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 Page 2 of 7 complications as a result of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Respondent denies that Petitioner’s GBS and 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 May 27, 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 lump sum of $160,000.00, 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 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 jointly or separately filing notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2 Case 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 21 Filed 06/19/14 Page 7 of 7 ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00941-1 Date issued/filed: 2014-07-29 Pages: 2 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/08/2014) regarding 25 DECISION Fees Stipulation/Proffer (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran.)(mpj) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 26 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 2 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 13-941V (Not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LOUIS R. BROCKINGTON, * * Filed: July 8, 2014 Petitioner, * * Decision by Stipulation; Attorneys’ v. * Fees & Costs * SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * James M. Griffin, Lewis Babcock & Griffin L.L.P, Columbia, SC, for Petitioner Justine E. Daigneault, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS DECISION1 On November 27, 2013, Petitioner Louis Brockington filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On May 27, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. On May 28, 2014, I 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, I will 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)). As provided by 42 U.S.C § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted 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 1:13-vv-00941-UNJ Document 26 Filed 07/29/14 Page 2 of 2 On July 8, 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 receive a lump sum of $10,819.65 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 accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner filed a statement on July 7, 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, James M. Griffin, Esq., in the amount of $10,819.65. 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.