VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00399
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00399
Petitioner: Danielle N. Meyer
Filed: 2015-09-29
Decided: 2015-12-28
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 600000

AI-assisted case summary:
On May 9, 2014, Danielle N. Meyer filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and related complications as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the vaccine caused her condition. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on September 29, 2015. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the court's decision. The stipulation awarded Danielle N. Meyer a lump sum of $600,000.00 as compensation for all damages. Subsequently, on December 1, 2015, the parties filed another stipulation regarding attorney's fees and costs. They agreed that Petitioner's counsel, Gregory F. Coleman of Greg Coleman Law, PC, should receive $56,000.00. Special Master Corcoran approved this amount as reasonable and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The public decision does not describe the specific date of vaccination, the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, or the medical experts consulted.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Danielle N. Meyer alleged that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine. The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, approved by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on September 29, 2015, awarding Petitioner $600,000.00 for all damages. A subsequent stipulation on December 1, 2015, approved by Special Master Corcoran, awarded Petitioner's counsel, Gregory F. Coleman, $56,000.00 for attorney's fees and costs. The public decision does not detail the specific vaccine date, age at vaccination, onset of symptoms, medical experts, or the specific mechanism of causation, and the settlement was reached without a determination of causation.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00399-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-10-21
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/29/2015) regarding 30 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00399-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/21/15 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-399V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
DANIELLE N. MEYER, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: September 29, 2015
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
* Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gregory Coleman, Greg Coleman Law, PC, Knoxville, TN, for Petitioner.
Linda Renzi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 9, 2014, Petitioner Danielle N. Meyer filed a petition seeking compensation under
the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-
Barré Syndrome, and related complications, as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccine.
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s 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 September 29, 2015, that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision
should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
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 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). 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. 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. 3758, codified as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ' 300aa-10 to ' 300aa-34 (2012).

Case 1:14-vv-00399-UNJ Document 35 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 7
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 $600,000.00, 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 filing notice renouncing their
right to seek review.
2

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0000339999--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2385 FFiilleedd 0190//2291//1155 PPaaggee 13 ooff 57

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0000339999--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2385 FFiilleedd 0190//2291//1155 PPaaggee 24 ooff 57

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0000339999--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2385 FFiilleedd 0190//2291//1155 PPaaggee 35 ooff 57

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0000339999--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2385 FFiilleedd 0190//2291//1155 PPaaggee 46 ooff 57

CCaassee 11::1144--vvvv--0000339999--UUNNJJ DDooccuummeenntt 2385 FFiilleedd 0190//2291//1155 PPaaggee 57 ooff 57

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00399-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-12-28
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/1/2015) regarding 38 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ag) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-00399-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-399V
(Not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
DANIELLE N. MEYER, *
* Filed: December 1, 2015
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s
v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law, PC, Knoxville, TN, for Petitioner
Linda Renzi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1
On May 9, 2014, Danielle Meyer filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On September 29, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation
detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the
parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation.
On December 1, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in
regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should
receive a lump sum of $56,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s
counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in
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 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). 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. 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.)

Case 1:14-vv-00399-UNJ Document 41 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 2
compliance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that she did not incur any
reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.
I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,
an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $56,000.00 payable jointly to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. 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 a joint notice renouncing their
right to seek review.