A.F. v. HHS - Influenza, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (2016)

Filed 2014-12-14Decided 2016-01-13Vaccine Influenza
compensated$80,000

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

Sheila Foster, on behalf of a minor child identified as A.F., filed a petition on December 14, 2015, alleging that A.F. developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on or about August 23, 2011. The petition further alleged that A.F. experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months.

The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccination caused A.F.'s GBS or any other injury. However, the parties filed a joint stipulation on damages on December 11, 2015.

The stipulation agreed that compensation should be awarded, and the parties stipulated that petitioner Sheila Foster, as legal representative of A.F., would receive a lump sum payment of $80,000.00, payable to the petitioner, as compensation for all damages available under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Special Master Thomas L.

Gowen reviewed the stipulation, found it reasonable, and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Judgment was entered in accordance with the stipulation.

The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the medical experts consulted by either party. Franklin J.

Caldwell, Jr. represented the petitioner, and Ryan D. Pyles represented the respondent.

Theory of causation

Petitioner alleged that A.F. developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on or about August 23, 2011, and experienced residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation on damages, agreeing to a lump sum award of $80,000.00 to Sheila Foster, as legal representative of A.F., for all damages available under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Special Master Thomas L. Gowen adopted the stipulation as the decision of the Court. The public decision does not specify the theory of causation, the medical experts, or the mechanism of injury.

Source PDFs 2 total · 1 downloaded