VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00483 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00483 Petitioner: Charles Czagas Filed: 2015-11-06 Decided: 2016-03-07 Vaccine: influenza Vaccination date: 2011-11-08 Condition: Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) and/or an axonal polyneuropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and tremors Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 70000 AI-assisted case summary: Charles Czagas filed a petition on November 6, 2015, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that his influenza vaccine received on November 8, 2011, caused him to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and/or an axonal polyneuropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and tremors. Mr. Czagas further alleged that he experienced residual effects from this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Czagas's alleged conditions. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on October 30, 2015. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision in awarding damages. The stipulation awarded Mr. Czagas a lump sum of $70,000.00, representing compensation for all damages available under the Act. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. Petitioner was represented by Isaiah R. Kalinowski of Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, and Respondent was represented by Debra A. Filteau Begley of the U.S. Department of Justice. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Charles Czagas alleged that his November 8, 2011, influenza vaccine caused Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and/or axonal polyneuropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and tremors, with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation filed October 30, 2015, which was adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on March 7, 2016. The stipulation awarded Petitioner $70,000.00 as compensation for all damages. The public decision does not describe the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or detailed clinical findings supporting the alleged GBS or other neurological conditions. Petitioner counsel was Isaiah R. Kalinowski, and Respondent counsel was Debra A. Filteau Begley. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-00483-0 Date issued/filed: 2016-03-07 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/06/2015) Regarding 36 DECISION Stipulation Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ay) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:14-vv-00483-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 14-483V * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CHARLES CZAGAS, * * Petitioner, * Filed: November 6, 2015 * v. * * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain–Barré Syndrome (“GBS”); * Axonal Polyneuropathy; Respondent. * Peripheral Neuropathy; Tremors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Isaiah R. Kalinowski, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Debra A. Filteau Begley, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On June 4, 2014, Charles Czagas filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that his November 8, 2011, receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine caused him to develop Guillain–Barré syndrome (“GBS”) and/or an axonal polyneuropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and tremors. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that Petitioner’s alleged GBS and/or axonal polyneuropathy, and/or peripheral neuropathy, and/or tremors, or any other condition was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed October 30, 2015) that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. 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, 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 published 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 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 through 34 (2012)). Case 1:14-vv-00483-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 7 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 $70,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 8. This amounts 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.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 each filing (either jointly or separately) a notice renouncing their right to seek review. 2 Case 1:14-vv-00483-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:14-vv-00483-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:14-vv-00483-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:14-vv-00483-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:14-vv-00483-UNJ Document 40 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 7