VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01020
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01020
Petitioner: Steven McGehee
Filed: 2014-10-21
Decided: 2016-07-06
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2011-10-24
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”), transverse myelitis (“TM”), and/or a peripheral neuropathy
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 150000

AI-assisted case summary:
Steven McGehee filed a petition for vaccine compensation on October 21, 2014, alleging that the influenza vaccine he received on or about October 24, 2011, caused him to suffer Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis (TM), and/or a peripheral neuropathy, with residual effects lasting more than six months. The influenza vaccine is listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Respondent denied that the vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injuries. The parties reached a settlement and filed a joint stipulation. The Special Master adopted the stipulation, awarding Steven McGehee a lump sum payment of $150,000.00 for all damages. The decision was issued on July 6, 2016. Petitioner was represented by Nancy Routh Meyers of Ward Black Law, and Respondent was represented by Glenn A. MacLeod of the U.S. Department of Justice. Special Master Christian J. Moran issued the decision.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Steven McGehee received an influenza vaccine on or about October 24, 2011. He alleged this vaccine caused Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis (TM), and/or a peripheral neuropathy, with residual effects lasting more than six months. The influenza vaccine is listed on the Vaccine Injury Table. Respondent denied causation. The parties entered into a joint stipulation to settle the case. The stipulation stated that respondent denied causation, but agreed to a settlement. The Special Master adopted the stipulation. Steven McGehee was awarded a lump sum of $150,000.00 for all damages. The decision was issued by Special Master Christian J. Moran on July 6, 2016. Petitioner was represented by Nancy Routh Meyers, and Respondent was represented by Glenn A. MacLeod.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01020-0
Date issued/filed: 2015-12-03
Pages: 6
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 11/6/2015) regarding 42 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (tpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 6
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STEVEN MCGEHEE, *
* No. 14-1020V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. * Filed: November 6, 2015
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Onset of neurologic problems
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nancy R. Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner;
Glenn A. MacLeod, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for
respondent.
RULING FINDING FACTS1
The petitioner, Steven McGehee, alleges that an influenza vaccine injured
his nerves. Mr. McGehee more specifically alleges he suffered transverse myelitis
or polyradiculitis. Pet. ¶¶ 8-9, 11. He seeks compensation pursuant to the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–10 through
34 (2012).
The Secretary maintains that Mr. McGehee is not entitled to compensation
for several reasons. The Secretary asserts that Mr. McGehee has not established
that he suffers from either transverse myelitis or polyradiculitis. Resp’t’s Rep.,
filed April 6, 2015, at 7-9. Additionally and importantly for the present ruling, the
Secretary and Mr. McGehee disagree about when Mr. McGehee first started to
1 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,
2002), requires that the Court post this ruling on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the
parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other
information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special
master will appear in the document posted on the website.

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 6
suffer symptoms associated with a neurologic problem. To resolve these factual
disputes, a hearing was held to receive testimony from percipient witnesses. See
Campbell v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 775, 779-80 (2006). Mr.
McGehee and a former girlfriend testified.2 Following the submission of one
additional document, the matter is ready for adjudication.
Basic Chronology of Undisputed Facts
Mr. McGehee was born in February 1965. At the age of 32, he was
diagnosed with an enlarged prostate. Exhibit 3 at 2.
In 2011, Mr. McGehee was working as an electrician at Moses Cone
Hospital. Exhibit 4 at 4, Tr. 35. At Moses Cone, Mr. McGehee received a dose of
the flu vaccine on October 24, 2011. Exhibit 1 at 3.
A few months before Mr. McGehee received the flu vaccine, he began
dating a woman who also worked at Moses Cone. Tr. 13, 25, 105. Mr. McGehee
and his former girlfriend recall that he had burning feelings in his saddle region,
particularly after intimate relations. Tr. 13-14, 108, 114. They both recalled that
Mr. McGehee’s problem was present by Thanksgiving 2011. Id.
The relationship between Mr. McGehee and his girlfriend ended shortly after
his birthday in February 2012. The burning in his saddle region and the way that
he responded to that pain contributed to the end of the relationship. Tr. 13-15, 20,
36-38, 43, 122.
Mr. McGehee saw a doctor for the first time after receiving the flu vaccine
on December 20, 2011. Exhibit 2 at 10. His next doctor’s visit, which was on
February 21, 2012, was similar. Id. at 9. At both appointments, Mr. McGehee told
Dr. Fagan that he was suffering from head congestion. Id. at 9-10. Mr. McGehee
did not tell Dr. Fagan about any pain in his saddle region at either appointment.
On March 19, 2012, Mr. McGehee returned to Dr. Fagan. On this occasion,
Dr. Fagan recorded that Mr. McGehee “complains of a burning pain involving his
scrotal and pelvic area as well as his left flank over the past one to 2 weeks. He
has burning on urination at times[.]” Exhibit 2 at 8.
2 The name of Mr. McGehee’s former girlfriend is not relevant.
2

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 6
Mr. McGehee provided a relatively similar history to a urologist on April 30,
2012. Dr. Dahlstedt recorded “[o]ver past 2 months or so, he has had persistent
burning in his perineum and scrotal area[.]” Exhibit 3 at 1.
Dr. Fagan’s March 19, 2012 record and Dr. Dahlstedt’s April 30, 2012
record point to an onset of burning at around the end of February or beginning of
March 2012. In contrast, Mr. McGehee’s memory places the onset at least three
months earlier, November 2011. This is the crux of the dispute: when did Mr.
McGehee first experience problems burning in his saddle region.
Standards for Adjudication
The standards for resolving findings of fact are sufficiently established that
they need not be repeated here. For a detailed account, see Bayless v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 08-679V, 2015 WL 638197, at *2 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. Jan. 15, 2015).
Assessment of Witnesses
Both Mr. McGehee and his former girlfriend were credible witnesses. They
were willing to provide information about what is usually a private topic. Mr.
McGehee responded to questions as best as his memory would allow. His former
girlfriend appeared to answer questions spontaneously and without pretense.
Analysis
I find that Mr. McGehee began to feel burning in his saddle region around
November 15, 2011. The witnesses’ oral testimony was sufficiently compelling to
overcome the presumption that attaches to medical records created
contemporaneously with the events that they are describing.
The finding that the burning in Mr. McGehee’s saddle region started around
November 15, 2011 is based on the chronology of the dating relationship between
Mr. McGehee and his former girlfriend. They had had sex without any problems
for a few weeks before sex became very painful for him. Tr. 108. Although
neither was sure when intercourse was first painful, both stated that by
Thanksgiving, sex was painful. Tr. 14, 113. Ejaculating increased Mr. McGehee’s
pain, but Mr. McGehee also had pain apart from intercourse. Tr. 13-15.
After at least one dramatic episode, Mr. McGehee’s girlfriend urged him to
go to the emergency room. Tr. 37. Based upon her training as a nurse, she
3

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/03/15 Page 4 of 6
believed that the burning sensation originated in his neurologic system. Tr. 15-16;
see also Tr. 23 (experience as a nurse). Mr. McGehee refused to seek medical
assistance because he was embarrassed because of the personal nature of his
problems. Tr. 14, 36.
The burning in Mr. McGehee’s saddle region was his primary, but not
exclusive, problem. He also felt burning in his feet. Tr. 35-36. Whether the
burning started in his feet and radiated up to his pelvis or whether the burning
started in his pelvis and radiated down is not clear. See Tr. 20, 28, 36. Mr.
McGehee also frequently experienced pain or burning when urinating. Tr. 21.
Less frequently, he experienced a sensation of rectal fullness. Id. There was also
some problem in his fingertips. Tr. 28. Overall, Mr. McGehee had good days and
bad days. Tr. 29.
Although the onset of Mr. McGehee’s problems was in November 2011, he
did not tell Dr. Fagan about his problems when Mr. McGehee saw him for sinus
congestion in December 2011 and February 2012. Exhibit 2 at 9-10, Tr. 49, 73-75.
Again, Mr. McGehee’s embarrassment made him reluctant to confide in Dr. Fagan.
In his testimony, Mr. McGehee recognized that in hindsight, he should have sought
medical attention months earlier when his girlfriend suggested that plan. Tr. 47.
Mr. McGehee finally disclosed the burning in his saddle region to Dr. Fagan
in March 2012. Exhibit 2 at 8. The Secretary relies upon the portion of the record
that states Mr. McGehee “complains of a burning pain involving his scrotal and
pelvic area . . . over the past one to 2 weeks.” Exhibit 2 at 8. This record is
presumptively accurate. Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 993 F.2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
However, in the hearing, Mr. McGehee provided a persuasive basis for
finding that Dr. Fagan’s record was not accurate. Mr. McGehee explained that he
told a woman who worked in Dr. Fagan’s office as a nurse that he was having a
burning problem in his saddle region for four or five months. The woman,
according to Mr. McGehee’s recollection, told him that he should have sought
medical attention after a week or two. Tr. 44-48, 83, 118.
It appears that the retort from the nurse may have influenced the history that
Mr. McGehee gave to Dr. Fagan. By all accounts, Mr. McGehee was already
seeking medical attention for a private matter reluctantly and then he perceived
that the nurse criticized him. To avoid a similar rebuke from the doctor, Mr.
McGehee told Dr. Fagan about his problems and supplied a chronology that
4

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/03/15 Page 5 of 6
aligned with the nurse’s expectation.3 Thus, it is more-likely-than-not that Dr.
Fagan accurately recorded inaccurate information.
In any event, Dr. Fagan’s March 19, 2012 record is one record that must be
placed into context with other evidence. This other evidence includes the
testimony from Mr. McGehee and his former girlfriend, which, as described above,
was compelling. In addition, in March 2013, Mr. McGehee told Dr. Willis that he
received a flu shot before the start of his symptoms, exhibit 4 at 4, and in April
2013, Mr. McGehee told Dr. Runheim that he was having pain for 18 months.
Exhibit 5 at 2, see also Tr. 54-55, 134-35. While Mr. McGehee was not providing
a history of contemporaneous events in this portion of Dr. Willis’s and Dr.
Runheim’s record, see Shapiro v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 101 Fed. Cl.
532, 539 (2011) (discussing meaning of contemporaneous), mot. for recons. denied
after remand, 105 Fed. Cl. 353 (2012), aff’d, 503 F. Appx. 952 (Fed. Cir. 2013),
Mr. McGehee’s reports to these doctors provide some ancillary support for his
testimony.
Conclusion
The parties are ordered to provide these findings of fact to any expert whom
they have retained to testify. Expert opinion inconsistent with these findings of
fact is not likely to be persuasive. See Burns v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that the special master did not abuse his
discretion in refraining from conducting a hearing when the petitioner’s expert
“based his opinion on facts not substantiated by the record”); Brooke Group Ltd. v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 242 (1993) (“When an expert
opinion is not supported by sufficient facts to validate it in the eyes of the law, or
when indisputable record facts contradict or otherwise render the opinion
unreasonable, it cannot support a jury’s verdict.”); Perreira v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 33 F.3d 1375, 1376 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“An expert opinion is no
better than the soundness of the reasons supporting it.”); see also Bradley v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 991 F.2d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (the assumption
of an expert about the accuracy of a fact witness’s testimony does not
“substantiate” the fact witness’s testimony).
3 Mr. McGehee testified that he told Dr. Fagan that his problems had been going on for
months. Tr. 83-84. However, it seems rather unlikely that Dr. Fagan would hear “four or five
months,” but write “one or two weeks.”
5

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 43 Filed 12/03/15 Page 6 of 6
A status conference is set, sua sponte, for December 9, 2015, at 2:00 P.M.
Eastern Time. The parties should be prepared to propose the next step in this
case.
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman, at
(202) 357-6360.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
6

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_14-vv-01020-1
Date issued/filed: 2016-07-06
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/15/16) regarding 53 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (dh) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STEVEN MCGEHEE, *
* No. 14-1020V
Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran
*
v. * Filed: June 15, 2016
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”);
* transverse myelitis (“TM”); peripheral
Respondent. * neuropathy.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nancy Routh Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner;
Glenn A. MacLeod, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION1
On June 15, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition
for compensation filed by Steven McGehee on October, 21, 2014. In his petition,
petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine, which is contained in the Vaccine
Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), and which he received on or about
October 24, 2011, caused him to suffer Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”),
transverse myelitis (“TM”), and/or a peripheral neuropathy. Petitioner further
alleges that he suffered the residual effects of this injury for more than six months.
Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil
action for damages on his behalf as a result of his condition.
Respondent denies that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner to suffer
GBS, TM, and/or a peripheral neuropathy or any other injury.
1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and
Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its
website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing
redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4).
Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as
Appendix A. The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the
decision of the Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Damages awarded in that stipulation include:
A lump sum payment of $150,000.00 in the form of a check payable to
petitioner, Steven McGehee. This amount represents compensation for
all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B,
the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 14-1020V according to this decision
and the attached stipulation.2
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Shannon Proctor, at (202)
357-6360.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each
party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal
Claims judge.
2

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
************************** * *
*
STEVEN T. MCGEHEE, *
*
Petitioner, *
*
V. * No. 14-1020V (ECF)
* SPECIAL MASTER
* CHRISTIA J. MORA
SECRETA RY OF HEALT H *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STIPULATIO
The parties hereby stipulate to the fol lowing matters:
I. Petitioner filed a petition for vaccine compensation under the ational Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I0 to 34 (the ··vaccine Program'"). The petition
seeks compensation for injuries allegedly related to petitioner"s receipt of trivalent innuenza
(''flu"") vaccine. which vaccine is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the ··Table""). 42 C.F.R.
§I 00.3(a).
2. Petitioner received the flu vaccine on or about October 24, 20 I I.
3. The vaccine was administered within the United States.
4. Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barre syndrome (. . GBS""). Transverse
Myelitis ("TM'"), and/or a peripheral neuropathy as a consequence of the nu immunization he
received on or about October 24, 20 I I, and further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of
this injury for more than six months.
Page I of 5

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/06/16 Page 4 of 7
5. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action
for damages on his behalf as a result of his condition.
6. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner·s alleged GBS, TM and/or
peripheral neuropathy or any other injury and further denies that his current disabilities are a
sequela of a vaccine-related injury.
7. Maintaining their above-stated positions. the parties nevertheless now agree that the
issues between them shall be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding the
compensation described in paragraph 8 of this Stipulation.
8. As soon as practicable after an entry of judgment reflecting a decision consistent with
the terms of this Stipulation. and after petitioner has filed an election to receive compensation
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-2 I (a)( I), the Secretary of Health and Human Services will issue
the following vaccine compensation payment:
A lump sum of$150,000.00 in the form ofa check payable to petitioner,
representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-I 5(a).
9. As soon as practicable after the entry of judgment on entitlement in this case, and after
petitioner has filed both a proper and timely election to receive compensation pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 300aa-2 I (a)( I). and an application, the parties will submit to further proceedings before
the special master to award reasonable attorneys· fees and costs incurred in proceeding upon this
petition.
I 0. Petitioner and his attorney represent that they have identified to respondent all
known sources of payment for items or services for which the Program is not primarily liable
under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I 5(g), including State compensation programs, insurance policies.
Page 2 of5

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/06/16 Page 5 of 7
Federal or State health benefits programs (other than Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.)), or entities that provide health services on a prepaid basis.
11. Payment made pursuant to paragraph 8 of this Stipulation and any amounts awarded
pursuant to paragraph 9 will be made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I 5(i), subject to the
availability of sufficient statutory funds.
12. The parties and their attorneys further agree and stipulate that, except for any award
for attorney's fees and litigation costs, the money provided pursuant to this Stipulation will be
used solely for the benefit of petitioner as contemplated by a strict construction of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa-l 5(a) and (d), and subject to the conditions of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-l 5(g) and (h).
13. In return for the payments described in paragraphs 8 and 9, petitioner, in his
individual capacity, and on behalf of his heirs. executors. administrators. successors. and assigns.
does forever irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and discharge the United States and
the Secretary of Health and Human Services from any and all actions or causes of action
(including agreements, judgments, claims, damages, loss of services, expenses and all demands
of whatever kind or nature) that have been brought, could have been brought, or could be timely
brought in the United States Court of Federal Claims. under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-I0 et seq .. on account of, or in any way growing out
of, any and all known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected personal injuries to or death of
petitioner resulting from, or alleged to have resulted from, the nu vaccination administered on or
about October 24, 2011. as alleged by petitioner in a petition for vaccine compensation filed on
or about October 21, 2014, in the United tates Court of Federal Claims as petition No. I 4-
l 020V.
Page 3 of5

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/06/16 Page 6 of 7
14. If petitioner should die prior to entry of judgment, this agreement shall be voidable
upon proper notice to the Court on behal fof either or both of the pa11ies.
15. If the special master fails to issue a decision in complete conformity with the terms
of this Stipulation or if the United States Cou11 of Federal Claims fails to enter judgment in
conformity with a decision that is in complete conformity with the terms of this Stipulation, then
the parties' settlement and this Stipulation shall be voidable at the sole discretion of either party.
16. This Stipulation expresses a full and complete negotiated settlement of liability and
damages claimed under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, except
as otherwise noted in paragraph 9 above. There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the
parties hereto to make any payment or do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated
and clearly agreed to. The parties fu1ther agree and understand that the award described in this
Stipulation may reflect a compromise of the parties· respective positions as to liability and/or
amount of damages, and futther, that a change in the nature of the injury or condition or in the
items of compensation sought, is not grounds to modify or revise this agreement.
17. This Stipulation shall not be construed as an admission by the United States or the
Secretary of Health and Hum an Services that the flu vaccine caused petitioner· s alleged G BS,
TM and/or peripheral neuropathy or any other injury or any of his current disabilities.
18. All rights and obligations of petitioner hereunder shall apply equally to petitioner's
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and/or assigns.
END OF STIPULATION
Page 4 of5

Case 1:14-vv-01020-UNJ Document 57 Filed 07/06/16 Page 7 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
PETITIONER:
STEVEN T. MCGEHEE
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
PETITIONER: OF TIIE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
~~
~~ERS,ESQ.
WARD BLACK LAW, P.A. Acting Deputy Director
208 West Wendover Avenue Torts Branch
Greensboro, NC 27401 Civil Division
Tel: (336) 333-2244 U.S. Department of Justice
P. 0. Box 146
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR
RESPONDENT:
oit&IJ#I(
NA AIR,
Director, Division of Injury Senior Trial Counsel
Compensation Programs Torts Branch, Civil Division
Healthcare Systems Bureau U.S. Department of Justice
Health Resources and Services Administration P.O. Box 146
U.S. Department of Health Benjamin Franklin Station
and Human Services Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
5600.Fishers Lane Tel: (202} 616-4122
Parklawn Building, Stop-08Nl46B
Rockville, MD 20857
Page 5 ofS