VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00996
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00996
Petitioner: Marvin C. Setness
Filed: 2013-12-17
Decided: 2016-06-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2010-12-01
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 25000

AI-assisted case summary:
Marvin C. Setness filed a petition on December 17, 2013, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Mr. Setness alleged that he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on December 1, 2010, and that the residual effects of this injury lasted for more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Setness's alleged injuries or his current condition. Despite these disagreements, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on May 6, 2016. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the court. The stipulation awarded Mr. Setness a lump sum of $25,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages available under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Special Master approved this award and directed the clerk to enter judgment accordingly, unless a motion for review was filed. Petitioner was represented by Leslie M. Stovall of Stovall & Associates, and Respondent was represented by Alexis B. Babcock of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued on June 28, 2016.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Marvin C. Setness alleged he developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving an influenza vaccine on December 1, 2010, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties settled via stipulation filed May 6, 2016, which was adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The stipulation awarded Petitioner a lump sum of $25,000.00 for all damages. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism, onset, symptoms, tests, treatments, or expert testimony. Petitioner was represented by Leslie M. Stovall, and Respondent by Alexis B. Babcock. The decision was issued June 28, 2016.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_13-vv-00996-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-06-28
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/01/2016) Regarding 43 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (ay) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:13-vv-00996-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 13-996V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
MARVIN C. SETNESS, *
* Filed: June 1, 2016
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
v. * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccination;
* Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leslie M. Stovall, Stovall & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 17, 2013, Marvin Setness filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges he suffered
from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on
December 1, 2010. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury
for more than six months.
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by his flu vaccination,
and denies that the vaccine caused any other injury or his current condition. Nonetheless both parties,
1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States
Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). 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 fourteen 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 Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100
Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Individual
section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:13-vv-00996-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/28/16 Page 2 of 7
while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on May 6, 2016)3 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 $25,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available under
Section 15(a) of the Act.
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.4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Special Master
3 The parties originally requested a “15-Week Order” on February 5, 2016, suggesting that Respondent was in the process
of approving a settlement in this case. That order required Petitioner’s counsel to file a “15-Week Petitioner Stipulation
Status Report (Response)” before issuance of a damages decision after Respondent had forwarded the draft stipulation.
Petitioner’s counsel has, however, failed to do so despite repeated attempts by my chambers to contact his office. In the
interest of Petitioner, I have decided to act on the stipulation filed in this case without that document having been filed.
4 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-00996-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/28/16 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00996-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/28/16 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00996-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/28/16 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00996-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/28/16 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:13-vv-00996-UNJ Document 47 Filed 06/28/16 Page 7 of 7