VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00291
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00291
Petitioner: Michael Lea
Filed: 2015-05-13
Decided: 2015-07-29
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2011-10-28
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 14348

AI-assisted case summary:
Amy Lea, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Lea, filed a petition alleging that Michael Lea suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine he received on October 28, 2011. The initial decision on May 13, 2015, dismissed the petition for insufficient proof, as Petitioner could not demonstrate entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act. Specifically, the record did not contain evidence of a "Table Injury" or a medical expert's opinion establishing that the vaccine caused the alleged injuries. However, on July 6, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs. The court found that the petition was brought in good faith and with a reasonable basis. Accordingly, the court awarded $14,348.70 in attorneys' fees and costs, made payable jointly to Petitioner and her counsel. Judgment was entered based on this stipulation.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00291-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-06-03
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 05/13/2015) regarding 28 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (jb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00291-UNJ Document 29 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-291V
Filed: May 13, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
AMY LEA, as Personal Representative *
of the Estate of MICHAEL LEA, *
* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Petitioner’s Motion for Dismissal
* Decision; Guillain-Barré Syndrome;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Reynaud, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On April 11, 2014, Amy Lea (“Petitioner”), as the Personal Representative of the Estate
of Michael Lea, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that
Michael Lea suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza vaccine
he received on October 28, 2011. Petition (“Pet”) at 1-2. The undersigned now finds that the
information in the record does not show entitlement to an award under the Program.
On May 8, 2015, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for a Decision Dismissing her
Petition. Motion, ECF No. 27. According to the motion, “[a]n investigation of the facts and
science supporting her case has demonstrated to [P]etitioner that they will be unable to prove that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation in the Vaccine Program.” Motion at 1. Petitioner further
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,
the undersigned intends 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 and note (2006)). In accordance with
Vaccine Rule 18(b), a party has 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,
the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within the requirements of that provision,
such material will be deleted from public access.

Case 1:14-vv-00291-UNJ Document 29 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2
states that she understands that dismissal decision will result in a judgment against her, and that
such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine Program. Id.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
Michael Lea suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of his vaccinations, or 2) that he suffered an injury that was actually caused
by a vaccine. See §§ 300aa-13(a)(1)(A) and 300aa-11(c)(1). An examination of the record did
not uncover any evidence that Michael Lea suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does
not contain a medical expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that his
injuries were caused by a vaccination.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation 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. § 300aa-13(a)(1). In this case, because the medical
records are insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation, a medical opinion must be
offered in support. Petitioner, however, has offered no such opinion.
Therefore, the only alternative remains to DENY this petition. Thus, this case is
dismissed for insufficient proof. In the absence of a motion for review, the Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00291-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-07-29
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/08/2015) regarding 32 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (jb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00291-UNJ Document 34 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-291
Filed: July 8, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
AMY LEA, as Personal Representative *
of the Estate of MICHAEL LEA, *
* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman
Petitioner, *
v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Reasonable
* Amount Requested to which Respondent
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Does Not Object.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Jennifer Reynaud, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On April 11, 2014, Amy Lea (“Petitioner”), as the Personal Representative of the Estate
of Michael Lea, filed a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury
Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that
Michael Lea suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of an influenza vaccine
he received on October 28, 2011. Petition (“Pet”) at 1-2. On May 13, 2015, the undersigned
issued a decision dismissing the case for insufficient proof.
On July 6, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact Concerning Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs. Pursuant to their Stipulation, the parties have agreed to an award of $14,348.70 in
attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order Number 9, Petitioner represents that
she has not incurred any costs in pursuit of her claim.
The undersigned finds 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, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and
1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished 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 Vaccine Rule
18(b), each party has 14 days within which to file a motion for redaction “of any information furnished by
that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential,
or (2) that are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.” In the absence of such motion, the entire decision will be available to
the public. Id.
1

Case 1:14-vv-00291-UNJ Document 34 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 2
appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $14,348.70, in the
form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Diana
Stadelnikas Sedar, of the law firm of Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA.
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/ Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of
notice renouncing the right to seek review.
2