VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01004
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01004
Petitioner: Irwin Reich
Filed: 2014-10-16
Decided: 2015-11-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2012-10-25
Condition: Guillain Barré Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 11000

AI-assisted case summary:
Irwin Reich filed a petition alleging that an influenza vaccine administered on October 25, 2012, caused him to develop Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). He also alleged a shingles vaccination caused his injury, but this vaccine is not covered under the Vaccine Act. The initial decision on July 30, 2015, dismissed the petition for insufficient proof, as the record lacked evidence of a Table injury and the petitioner's expert did not support causation. The petitioner's counsel stated that an investigation demonstrated difficulty in proving entitlement. Subsequently, on October 20, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation concerning attorneys' fees and costs. The parties agreed to an award of $11,000.00 for fees and costs, finding the petition was brought in good faith with a reasonable basis. The court awarded this amount jointly to Mr. Reich and his counsel. The case was ultimately compensated based on the stipulation for attorneys' fees and costs, despite the initial dismissal for insufficient proof of the underlying GBS claim.

Theory of causation field:
unclear

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01004-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-08-21
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/30/2015) regarding 26 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (jb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01004-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1004V
Filed: July 30, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
IRWIN REICH, *
* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Petitioner’s Motion for Dismissal
* Decision; Influenza (“Flu”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccination; Guillain Barré
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Syndrome.
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nora Constance Marino, Nora Constance Marino, Esq., Great Neck, NY, for Petitioner
Adriana Teitel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On October 16, 2014, Irwin Reich (“Petitioner”) 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 an Influenza (“flu”) vaccine2 administered on October
25, 2012 caused him to suffer from Guillain Barré Syndrome. Petition (“Pet.”) at 1-3. The
undersigned now finds that the information in the record does not show entitlement to an award
under the Program.
On July 29, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for Dismissal. According to the Motion,
“[a]n investigation of the facts and law regarding this matter has demonstrated that with respect
to the standards set forth herein, it will be difficult for petitioner to prove that he is entitled to
compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Vaccine Program. Under these circumstances,
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.
2 Petitioner also alleged that a Shingle[s] vaccination caused his injury. This is not a covered
vaccine under the Vaccine Act. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a).

Case 1:14-vv-01004-UNJ Document 27 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 2
it would be unreasonable to proceed in this Court.” Motion, at 1-2. Petitioner further states that
he understands that a dismissal decision will result in a judgment against him, and that such a
judgment will end all of his rights in the Vaccine Program.
To receive compensation under the Vaccine Act, Petitioner must prove either 1) that he
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 he suffered a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical
expert’s opinion3 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 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. Although an expert’s opinion was offered in this case, it did not support
causation. See Pet. Ex. 6.
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
3 Petitioner filed an expert report on July 16, 2015; however, Petitioner’s expert did not opine in
favor of causation. Pet. Ex. 6, ECF No. 23.
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01004-1
Date issued/filed: 2015-11-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/20/2015) regarding 32 DECISION Fees Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. (jb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01004-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 14-1004V
Filed: October 20, 2015
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED
IRWIN REICH, *
* 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. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nora Constance Marino, Law Offices of Nora Constance Marino, Great Neck, NY, for Petitioner.
Adriana Teitel, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On October 16, 2014, Irwin Reich (“Petitioner”) 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 the administration of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine2 on
October 25, 2012 caused his to suffer from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). Petition (“Pet.”)
at 1-4. On July 30, 2015, the undersigned filed a decision dismissing the case for insufficient
proof. Decision, ECF No. 26.
On October 20, 2015, Respondent filed a “Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’
Fees and Costs”. Pursuant to their Stipulation, the parties have agreed to an award of $11,000.00
in attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner’s counsel
represents that Petitioner has not incurred any costs in pursuit of this claim. Stipulation, ECF
No. 31.
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
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.
2 Petitioner also alleged that a shingles vaccination, received on December 10, 2012, caused his injury.
However, this is not a covered vaccine under the Vaccine Act. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a).
1

Case 1:14-vv-01004-UNJ Document 33 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 2
42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and
appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $11,000.00, in the
form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Nora
Constance Marino.
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.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman
Special Master
3 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