VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00519
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00519
Petitioner: Jeremy Eamick
Filed: 2015-05-21
Decided: 2019-07-24
Vaccine: hepatitis A
Vaccination date: 2012-07-17
Condition: Miller-Fisher variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 1217984

AI-assisted case summary:
Jeremy Eamick filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 21, 2015, alleging that the hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines he received caused him to develop the Miller-Fisher variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Mr. Eamick was 33 years old at the time. He had received multiple vaccines on June 15, 2012, including hepatitis A and B, and received a second dose of hepatitis A and B vaccines on July 17, 2012. He also experienced an upper respiratory infection (URI) in the month preceding the onset of his GBS symptoms, which first manifested on July 24, 2012. The Special Master's Ruling on Entitlement, issued on May 15, 2018, found that while the URI was a but-for cause of Mr. Eamick's GBS, the hepatitis vaccines were also a substantial factor. Petitioner's expert, Dr. Eric Gershwin, proposed a theory that the cytokine response from the hepatitis vaccines interacted with the immune response to the URI, leading to a loss of tolerance and GBS. Respondent's expert, Dr. Penelope Morel, argued that the URI alone was sufficient to cause the GBS. The Special Master found Dr. Gershwin's theory persuasive and the temporal relationship between the vaccination and the onset of GBS to be appropriate, satisfying the criteria outlined in Althen v. Secretary of Health & Human Services. The Special Master concluded that Mr. Eamick had met his burden of proof for an off-Table injury and was entitled to compensation. Following the entitlement ruling, the parties stipulated to an award of damages. On July 24, 2019, Special Master Christian J. Moran issued a decision awarding Mr. Eamick $1,217,984.83. This award included a lump sum payment of $1,217,984.83 for life care expenses incurred in the first year, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses. Additionally, an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract was awarded to cover future life care items, with specified growth rates for medical and non-medical expenses. The annuity payments were to be made to Mr. Eamick for his lifetime. Petitioner was represented by Edward M. Kraus of the Law Offices of Chicago Kent, and respondent was represented by Lisa Ann Watts of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Jeremy Eamick, age 33, received hepatitis A and B vaccines on June 15, 2012, and July 17, 2012, and subsequently developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), specifically the Miller-Fisher variant. He also had a preceding upper respiratory infection (URI). Petitioner's expert, Dr. Eric Gershwin, proposed a theory that the cytokine response from the hepatitis vaccines, acting on lymph nodes where the URI immune response was also occurring, caused a loss of tolerance through molecular mimicry, leading to GBS. Respondent's expert, Dr. Penelope Morel, contended that the URI was the sole substantial factor. The Special Master, Christian J. Moran, found Dr. Gershwin's theory persuasive and the temporal relationship appropriate, concluding that the vaccines were a substantial factor in causing the GBS, an off-Table injury. The parties stipulated to an award of $1,217,984.83, comprising a lump sum for first-year life care expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses, plus an annuity for future life care items. Attorneys for petitioner were Edward M. Kraus and for respondent was Lisa Ann Watts. The entitlement ruling was dated May 15, 2018, and the damages award was dated July 24, 2019.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00519-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-06-12
Pages: 13
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 5/15/2018) regarding 71 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JEREMY EAMICK, *
*
Petitioner, * No. 15-519V
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
v. *
* Filed: May 15, 2018
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Entitlement, hepatitis A vaccine,
* hepatitis B vaccine, GBS, cytokines,
Respondent. * concurrent illness.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner;
Lisa Ann Watts, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Petitioner, Jeremy Eamick, alleges that the hepatitis A and hepatitis B
vaccines that he received on June 15, 2012 and July 17, 2012, caused him to
develop the Miller-Fisher variant of Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”).2 Mr.
Eamick is seeking compensation pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa−10 through 34
(2012).
The parties do not dispute that an upper respiratory infection (“URI”)
affecting Mr. Eamick in the month leading to the onset of his GBS was a but-for
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.
2 Miller-Fisher syndrome is a variant of GBS that is found in a small subset of the United
States GBS population. Tr. 72, 101. For the purposes here, Mr. Eamick’s condition is referred
to as GBS since, according to petitioner, the fact that his GBS was of the Miller-Fisher variant is
not important to his theory of causation. Tr. 73, 76.
1

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 2 of 13
cause of his GBS. However, petitioner’s expert, Dr. Eric Gershwin, adds that the
infection was not sufficient to cause Mr. Eamick to develop GBS and that it was
the vaccines that transformed the relatively ubiquitous URI into an infection that
ultimately caused Mr. Eamick to develop GBS. Respondent’s expert, Dr. Penelope
Morel, disagrees. She argues that Mr. Eamick’s URI was sufficient to cause his
GBS.
Under the framework for determining causation promulgated by the Federal
Circuit, Mr. Eamick has met his burden for proving entitlement to compensation.
Mr. Eamick presents a logical sequence of cause and effect connecting the
vaccination and the injury, which is based on a persuasive medical theory and a
showing that the temporal sequence is appropriate. Further, the Secretary has not
established that a factor unrelated to the vaccination is the cause of Mr. Eamick’s
symptoms.
I. Facts
The facts of Mr. Eamick’s case are not in dispute. Mr. Eamick was 33 years
old when he developed GBS in July 2012. The month before, Mr. Eamick reported
for basic training in the Army National Guard. Exhibit 1 at 6. As part of his
service, Mr. Eamick received vaccines for adenovirus 4 and 7, bicillin, hepatitis A
and hepatitis B, meningococcal, polio IPV, and tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis on
June 15, 2012. Exhibit 11 at 1. Three weeks later, on July 7, 2012, Mr. Eamick
went to the clinic with complaints of congestion, cough, and sinus discharge.
Exhibit 8 at 54. Ten days following this visit, on July 17, 2012, Mr. Eamick was
vaccinated again with the second administration of the hepatitis A and hepatitis B
vaccines. Exhibit 11 at 1. During this time, Mr. Eamick’s respiratory infection
had been progressively worsening and he reported to the clinic again on July 21,
2012. Exhibit 8 at 50. At this visit, he was diagnosed with bronchitis and was
prescribed an antibiotic. Id.
Dr. Gershwin and Dr. Morel agree that Mr. Eamick’s GBS first manifested
on July 24, 2012. Tr. 108, 200. On that date, he went to the emergency
department at Fort Leonard Wood Hospital complaining of difficulty speaking,
difficulty with coordination, and numbness in his face, hands, and feet. Exhibit 1
at 39. He was discharged and ordered to bed rest. Id. at 43. He returned to the
same hospital the next day when he had difficulty walking and performing his
duties. Id. at 44-45. The hospital diagnosed him with an acute neurological injury.
Exhibit 8 at 7. The hospital also recommended that Mr. Eamick be sent to the
2

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 3 of 13
University of Missouri Hospital, which he was later that same day, July 25, 2012.
Id.; exhibit 1 at 53.
Mr. Eamick was hospitalized at the University of Missouri hospital for
longer than two weeks. See exhibit 2. Testing found anti-GQ1b antibodies, which
confirmed a diagnosis of GBS.3 Id. at 68. Although Mr. Eamick received
extensive care, including plasmapheresis and physical therapy, he continues to
experience disability due to the GBS. See exhibit 12 at 1-5. Both experts
characterized Mr. Eamick’s case to be a particularly severe form of GBS. Tr. 96,
184.
Mr. Eamick filed his petition for compensation on May 21, 2015. On
November 4, 2015, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report, stating that there was,
among other deficits, insufficient evidence linking vaccinations to GBS. See
Resp’t’s Rep., filed Nov. 4, 2015, at 7-10.
Mr. Eamick filed two reports from Dr. Gershwin in support of his claim for
compensation (exhibits 25 and 113). The Secretary filed two responsive reports
from Dr. Morel (exhibits B and DD).4 A one-day entitlement hearing was held on
September 13, 2017. Mr. Eamick, Dr. Gershwin, and Dr. Morel testified in the
hearing.
II. The Experts’ Qualifications and Assessment
A. Dr. Eric Gershwin, M.D.
Dr. Gershwin is a Distinguished Professor of Medicine with the University
of California at Davis, where he currently holds a chaired professorship in honor of
Jack and Donald Chia. Dr. Gershwin received his undergraduate degree, summa
cum laude, from Syracuse University and his medical degree from Stanford. He
has an honorary doctorate from the University of Athens, in recognition for his
lifetime contribution in immunology and medicine. He has also been awarded the
AESKU prize in Autoimmunity in 2008, in recognition of his lifetime contribution
in immunology. He is also fellow with the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. He is board-certified in internal medicine,
rheumatology, and allergy and clinical immunology, and currently serves as the
3 See generally exhibit 58 for a discussion of how antibodies to gangliosides (molecular
structures present on neurons)—such as GQ1b—mediate the course of GBS.
4 Ancillary reports from the experts addressing specific questions were also filed by both
petitioner and respondent.
3

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 4 of 13
editor-in-chief for the Journal of Autoimmunity, Autoimmunity Reviews, and
Clinical Reviews in Allergy. He has written or edited 68 books or monographs,
approximately 1,000 experimental research articles, 160 book chapters, and 200
review articles.
B. Dr. Penelope Morel, M.D.
Dr. Morel is a professor in the Department of Immunology at the University
of Pittsburgh, with a secondary appointment as a professor in the Department of
Medicine. She also serves as an affiliate member in the Center for Vaccine
Research. Dr. Morel received her undergraduate and medical degrees from the
University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. She obtained her doctor of
medicine in immunology from the University of Geneva in Switzerland. While she
performed clinical work early in her career, she no longer practices medicine and
does not hold any board certifications. Tr. 176. Dr. Morel has published
approximately 70 experimental research articles, and 40 non-experimental articles,
chapters, and reviews.
C. Evaluation
In considering the value of opinion testimony, special masters may consider
the offeror's expertise and weigh the opinion accordingly. Copenhaver v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., No. 13-1002V, 2016 WL 3456436, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Spec.
Mstr. May 31, 2016), mot. for rev. denied, 129 Fed. Cl. 176 (2016). Beyond
expertise, special masters may make determinations as to the credibility of the
persons presenting opinion evidence. Moberly v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
592 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
While both experts provided helpful testimony, Dr. Gershwin’s testimony
was considerably more impressive. Dr. Gershwin’s testimony struck the
undersigned as being highly credible. He appeared confident in the opinions he
did express, but at the same time he was candid and forthright when stating the
limits of those opinions and the stochastic nature of topics being discussed. In
addition, Dr. Gershwin’s experience and expertise as both a physician and a
scientist allowed him to provide helpful insight into the questions at issue. Finally,
Dr. Gershwin’s scholarship is broad; few experts in the Vaccine Program have
written as prodigiously as he has. His expansive knowledge in the field of
autoimmunity gave substantial weight to his opinions.
4

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 5 of 13
Compared to Dr. Gershwin, Dr. Morel’s answers were often uncertain in
both tone and content. While Dr. Morel is medically trained, she has not treated
patients in some time and this lack of practical experience, accordingly, limited the
weight and scope of some of her opinions. While Dr. Morel’s scholarship is
impressive, the scope of her scholarship and reputability in the field of
immunology has not yet reached the level of Dr. Gershwin. This may very well
reflect that she is at an earlier stage of her career compared to Dr. Gershwin, but
that does not affect the ultimate impression that Dr. Gershwin’s opinion carries
with it more weight on topics in immunology.
III. Standards for Adjudication
Compensation under the Vaccine Act is available in two major forms. Table
injuries, which presume causation, can be established if a prescribed injury occurs
during a set period of time following a specific vaccination. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
11(c)(1)(C)(i). Alternatively, petitioners can receive compensation for injuries not
provided for in the Vaccine Injury Table by bringing a successful petition for
compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii) of the Vaccine Act.
Here, Mr. Eamick does not claim that GBS constitutes a Table injury for
hepatitis A or B vaccine under the Vaccine Act. As an “off-Table Injury,” Mr.
Eamick must demonstrate that the vaccination caused his injury.
Petitioner’s burden of proof as an off-Table injury is explicitly defined by
Congress. The Act provides that a petitioner must show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the vaccination caused or significantly aggravated his illness or
injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c); see also
Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322 (noting that petitioners must prove causation by the
traditional tort standard of preponderance). As for what is specifically required to
meet this burden, the statute requires that the conclusion of the court or special
master may not be “based on the claims of a petitioner alone, unsubstantiated by
medical records or by medical opinion.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1). The statute
does not speak to the strength or reputability of the medical opinion, just that a
medical opinion or medical records are necessary for a claim to be meritorious.
See id.
In drawing conclusions on causation, the Federal Circuit has noted that
special masters must be careful not to raise petitioners’ burden by establishing tests
that create requirements not in the statute itself. Capizzano v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (rejecting a test that required
5

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 6 of 13
“epidemiologic studies, rechallenge, the presence of pathological markers or
genetic disposition, or general acceptance in the scientific or medical
communities”); Althen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 418 F.3d 1274, 1279
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejecting a test requiring “confirmation of medical plausibility
from the medical community and literature” to prove causation in fact); Knudsen v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 549 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“to require
identification and proof of specific biological mechanisms would be inconsistent
with the purpose and nature of the vaccine compensation program”).
Instead, special masters must consider all the evidence and decide whether
the causal link between the vaccination and the injury was logical and legally
probable. See Knudsen, 35 F.3d at 549 (“The sole issues for the special master are,
based on the record evidence as a whole and the totality of the case, whether it has
been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a vaccine caused the []
injury.”); Grant v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (“Causation in fact requires proof of a logical sequence of cause and
effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury.”); Hines v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 940 F.2d 1518, 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“causation in
fact requires proof of a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the
vaccination was the reason for the injury.”).
In determining whether preponderant evidence exists, the Federal Circuit has
set forth a three-part framework for evaluating claims of vaccine injury causation.
As explained in Althen, and subsequent opinions, petitioners must put forth: “(1) a
medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury; (2) a logical
sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the
injury; and (3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination
and injury.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278.
IV. Analysis
A. Althen Prong One: Petitioner’s Medical Theory.
Mr. Eamick does not need to prove with scientific certainty that the
vaccination he received can cause GBS. However, petitioners may not posit just
any theory of causation; the theory must be “reputable.” Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278
(“A persuasive medical theory . . . being supported by reputable medical or
scientific explanation”) (internal citations omitted). What makes a theory
“reputable” is not exactly clear. In Hibbard, the Federal Circuit stated that
petitioner’s burden was to provide a “viable medical theory by which a vaccine can
cause the injury claimed by the petitioner.” Hibbard v. Sec'y of Health & Human
6

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 7 of 13
Servs., 698 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In contrast to mere “viability,” in
Moberly, the Federal Circuit required that the theory be “legally probable.”
Moberly v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 592 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
2010). Though the Federal Circuit has not spoken in unison about what exactly is
required from petitioners, based on the directives it has provided, it appears
accurate to say that petitioner’s medical theory linking the vaccination and the
injury must, at the least, be consistent with what is known about human biology.
Without a theory that passes that barrier, the Federal Circuit dictates that
compensation should be precluded. If the theory meets this minimum barrier to
entry, the special master should proceed to consider the other Althen elements to
make an ultimate conclusion on the question of whether predominant evidence
exists to find causation.
To understand the experts’ positions as it relates to Mr. Eamick’s case, a
brief review of Mr. Eamick’s condition and its etiology is useful. GBS is a
potentially life-threatening disease hallmarked by weakness in the extremities.
Exhibit E at 1. Some cases, as in Mr. Eamick’s, result in respiratory distress. Id.
Scientists believe that GBS is autoimmune in nature and results from the body’s
immune system generating crossreactive antibodies formed in response to
pathogen-borne antigens. See id. at 1-4. These antibodies will then attack nerve
membranes, resulting in nerve damage or a loss of nerve conduction. Id. This
attack on the body’s own cells is referred to as a “loss of tolerance.”
As noted before, the creation of the cross-reactive antibodies is usually the
result of exposure to certain pathogens. Id. at 3. Some pathogens will result in
GBS more frequently than others. Id. Although the most common is
Campylobacter jejuni, a gastrointestinal infection, upper respiratory infections,
such as the infection that Mr. Eamick had, are another common culprit. Id.
It is not known why some URIs develop into GBS while most do not. Dr.
Gershwin cites from exhibit 51 (Hadden) for the proposition that the reason some
infections result in GBS is likely a function of how the body’s immune system
responds to the infection as opposed to features of the infection itself. Tr. 82.
Specifically, he references the authors’ statement that “[t]he pathogenesis is likely
to depend not only on the immunogenic components of the infecting organisms,
but also on the host's immune response." Id. (referencing exhibit 51 (R.D.M.
Hadden et al., Preceding Infections, Immune Factors, And Outcome In Guillain-
Barre Syndrome, 56 Neurology 758 (2001)) at 7). Importantly, Dr. Morel, agreed
with this proposition in her testimony. See Tr. 247-48.
7

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 8 of 13
Dr. Gershwin, in his reports and his testimony, provided a persuasive case
for how the hepatitis vaccines could dysregulate the host’s response to the URI
infection in a way that resulted in a breach of tolerance. Dr. Gershwin argued that
cytokines are already known to act as “amplifiers” that “facilitate antigen
presentation” by “augmenting . . . antibody production.” Tr. 76-77. This cytokine
response plays a necessary role in developing Mr. Eamick’s immune response to
the URI. A similar type of cytokine response happens as a result of all
vaccinations. Tr. 88. In Dr. Gershwin’s estimation, this cytokine response from
the vaccination can have non-specific effects. Specifically, it can, in conjunction
with the immune response to the URI, result in a loss of tolerance to endogenous
antigens through molecular imitation of the URI antigen. Tr. 85, 89. This
crossreactivity is what ultimately leads to GBS. Tr. 89.
The Secretary’s expert, Dr. Morel, attempted to rebut Dr. Gershwin’s theory
on three main grounds. First, she argues that the cytokine response to the vaccine
could not have interacted with the response to the URI since the cytokine response
to the vaccine is limited in space and does not result in a systemic cytokine
response. Tr. 188. Second, she argues that the epidemiological evidence does not
support causation. Third, she argues that there is no evidence in support of Dr.
Gershwin’s theory. Tr. 183-84. These critiques are addressed in turn.
Dr. Morel argues that “there would have to have been some evidence of
some widespread systemic response to the vaccine in order to really believe that
this response would have spilled over and caused further exacerbation of what was
already an immune response to a quite severe respiratory infection.” Tr. 189-90.
While Dr. Gershwin disagrees with Dr. Morel’s statement that the cytokine
reaction to the vaccine is not systemic, Tr. 91, he ultimately states that the issue of
the systematic nature of the immune response is moot. He argues that since the
lymph nodes where the cytokine response to the vaccine would occur are the same
as the lymph nodes where the immune response to the URI would occur, the two
responses have the opportunity to interact. Tr. 91-92. Dr. Morel does not
challenge that there is a strong cytokine response to the vaccine in the lymph
nodes, Tr. 190, and actually proffers exhibit HH to make that very point. See
exhibit FF at 2 (citing exhibit HH (Nikolaos Chatziandreou, Macrophage Death
following Influenza Vaccination Initiates the Inflammatory Response that
Promotes Dendritic Cell Function in the Draining Lymph Node, 18 Cell Reports
2427 (2017)) to establish that “the majority of the cytokines produced by cells of
the innate and adaptive immune system are confined to the lymph node”).
8

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 9 of 13
While Dr. Morel did introduce persuasive epidemiological studies showing
that there is not an association between hepatitis vaccines and GBS, those studies
do not appear to inform the present case. See exhibit B at 4 (citing, e.g., exhibit O
(Nizar Souayah et al., Analysis of Data from the CDC/FDA Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System (1990-2009) on Guillain-Barre Syndrome after Hepatitis
Vaccination in the USA, 19 J. Clinical Neuroscience 1089 (2012)) and exhibit U
(Penina Haber et al., Vaccines and Guillain-Barré Syndrome, 32 Drug Safety 309
(2009)). As noted above, Dr. Gershwin does not claim that the hepatitis vaccine
alone caused Mr. Eamick’s GBS to develop. Instead, Dr. Gershwin argues that the
vaccination explains why Mr. Eamick’s URI induced a loss of tolerance,
something that very few URIs do. An informative epidemiological study would
have to examine the effects of hepatitis vaccination on individuals suffering from a
URI (or perhaps other infections associated with GBS) to see if there were an
increased risk of developing GBS. According to both experts, these studies have
not been done and would be incredibly difficult to do given the sample size
required. Tr. 97, 211.
Dr. Morel also challenges Dr. Gershwin’s theory on the basis that there is a
lack of evidence linking hepatitis vaccinations with GBS. However, it appears that
she applies a burden that is in excess of the burden imagined by the Vaccine Act as
interpreted by the Federal Circuit. Towards the end of her testimony, Dr. Morel
summarized her opinion:
. . . there aren't any studies that have -- that describe the precise
sequence of events that Mr. Eamick went through. All we can say is
that, taken separately, we know that GBS is usually preceded by an
upper respiratory tract infection and that hepatitis A and B vaccines,
in general, do not cause that disease. So I think I'd just put those two
facts together, and that's how I came up with my opinion.
Tr. 243. This statement reflects the undersigned’s general impression that Dr.
Morel and Dr. Gershwin primarily disagree about the sufficiency of the evidence
necessary to draw their conclusions. As a physician and a scientist, Dr. Morel may
find the evidence here to be insufficient to conclude that the hepatitis vaccinations
can cause GBS under the right circumstances. However, the undersigned is not
tasked with determining if the hepatitis vaccinations can cause GBS with anything
approaching medical certainty. The only question is whether petitioner’s theory
meets the standards set forth by the Federal Circuit under Althen. On its face, Dr.
Gershwin’s theory is persuasive. Respondent has presented insufficient evidence
9

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 10 of 13
to undermine its reputability and thus Mr. Eamick has satisfied the first prong of
the Althen analysis.
B. Althen Prong Three: Temporal Relationship between the
Vaccination and the Injury.
Neither party focused on the issue of timing. Petitioner’s pre-hearing brief
dedicated a paragraph to the issue. See Pet’r’s Preh’g Br., filed June 13, 2017, at
22. Respondent’s brief dedicated two. See Resp’t’s Preh’g Br., filed July 13,
2017, at 17. However, the extent of respondent’s argument was to say that
petitioner did not sufficiently address the timing element. Id.
The limited time spent analyzing the question of timing is likely, in part,
attributable to the fact that both parties agree that the timing between Mr. Eamick’s
URI and the onset of his GBS was consistent with a causal link existing between
the two. Id. This fact is, in large part, the basis for the Secretary’s argument that
the URI completely accounts for Mr. Eamick’s GBS. See Tr. 183; see also exhibit
B at 3 (noting that the timing was appropriate).
However, as noted before, the point of disagreement between the parties is
whether the vaccination was also a substantial factor. See Shyface v. Secʼy of
Health & Human Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (indicating that a
vaccination is the “legal cause” of an injury if the vaccination “is a ‘substantial
factor’ in bringing about the harm, and that the harm would not have occurred but
for the” vaccination). In his testimony, Dr. Gershwin points to the timing between
the vaccination and the onset of GBS as indicating a causal relationship between
the two.
To support this assertion, Dr. Gershwin explained that starting 24-48 hours
after antigen exposure, immunoglobulin (Ig) that has been exposed to the antigen
will begin to “class switch” from IgM to IgG. Tr. 100. This class switch would
peak seven to ten days following antigen presentation. Id. This change to IgG is
important because IgG can more easily pass through the blood brain barrier and
result in the type of pathology seen in GBS. Tr. 199. Because Mr. Eamick’s GBS
symptoms appeared one week following his vaccination, Dr. Gershwin argues that
this sequence is consistent with his medical theory that the cytokine response to the
hepatitis vaccine played a substantial role in the development of Mr. Eamick’s
GBS. Tr. 100. The respondent’s expert did not counter this argument.
Accordingly, the evidence in the record favors a finding that there was an
10

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 11 of 13
appropriately proximate temporal relationship between the vaccination and the
onset of Mr. Eamick’s GBS.
C. Althen Prong Two: Logical Sequence of Cause and Effect Showing
that the Vaccination was the Reason for Mr. Eamick’s GBS.
Evidence of a viable medical theory and temporal proximity between the
vaccination and the injury is strong evidence of causation. However, the Federal
Circuit has also said that such evidence is not enough. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278
(“[a]lthough probative, neither a mere showing of a proximate temporal
relationship between vaccination and injury, nor a simplistic elimination of other
potential causes of the injury suffices, without more, to meet the burden of
showing actual causation”). In Capizzano, the Federal Circuit further expounded
upon the importance of evaluating whether a logical sequence of cause and effect
exists independently of the timing analysis. Specifically, the Capizzano panel
stated “[t]here may well be a circumstance where it is found that a vaccine can
cause the injury at issue and where the injury was temporally proximate to the
vaccination, but it is illogical to conclude that the injury was actually caused by the
vaccine.” Capizzano, 440 F.3d at 1327. Thus, special masters must consider the
whole picture and determine, on the basis of all the evidence, if the purported
connection between the vaccination and the injury is logical. Examples of some of
the evidence that special masters may consider here include the opinions of
treating physicians and medical experts, evidence of rechallenge, epidemiological
studies, and the probability of coincidence or another cause. See id. The evidence
available to be weighed will, of course, depend on the facts of the case.
The parties did not present much evidence to be weighed under the second
Althen Prong. See Pet’r’s Preh’g Br., filed June 13, 2017, at 20-22; Resp’t’s
Preh’g Br., filed July 13, 2017, at 15-17. In large part, the focus of both
petitioner’s and respondent’s arguments under this prong of the analysis reverted to
an examination of the underlying medical theory as well as the temporal
relationship between the URI, the vaccinations, and the GBS. Id. These issues
have been reviewed above.
In addition, respondent points out that no treating physician associated Mr.
Eamick’s GBS to his vaccinations. Resp’t’s Preh’g Br., filed July 13, 2017, at 15;
Tr. 125. While this observation weighs against the conclusion that there exists a
logical connection between the vaccinations and the disease, the weight of this
evidence is not substantial. For one, as reviewed above, it is unknown why some
URIs trigger GBS and others do not. Accordingly, the physician would merely be
11

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 12 of 13
speculating and this lack of speculation in the medical records does not strike the
undersigned as particularly meaningful. Second, Dr. Gershwin’s opinion that the
association between Mr. Eamick’s vaccination and his development of GBS is
logical is given substantial weight. As noted before, Dr. Gershwin’s testimony was
particularly credible and his argument for the logical basis between the vaccination
and the injury was persuasive. See Section II.C.
D. Alternative Causation or Factor Unrelated
Even though Mr. Eamick has established his prima facie case under Althen,
the Secretary may still establish by preponderant evidence that his GBS is due to
factors unrelated to the vaccinations, thus precluding compensation. See
Deribeaux v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 717 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1)(B)). To do so, respondent must “provide
that proof by identifying a particular such factor (or factors) and presenting
sufficient evidence to establish that it was the sole substantial factor in bringing
about the injury.” Bazan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 539 F.3d 1347, 1354
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
Here, the Secretary argues that Mr. Eamick’s URI is the sole substantial
factor in bringing about his GBS and that this should preclude compensation.
Resp’t’s Preh’g Br., filed July 13, 2017, at 10, 16. In doing so, respondent cites to
Tompkins v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., No. 10-261V, 2013 WL 3498652
(Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 21, 2013), mot. for rev. denied, 117 Fed. Cl. 713 (2014).
The respondent is correct in noting that the facts in Tompkins are quite similar to
the facts of Mr. Eamick’s case. Thus, it is not surprising that the respondent points
to Special Master Vowell’s conclusion that Mr. Tompkins’s preceding respiratory
infection was the cause of his GBS, precluding compensation. Id. at *1 (“I find
that his upper respiratory infection, which began two weeks prior to the onset of
his GBS symptoms, is a well-recognized cause of GBS, occurred at an appropriate
temporal interval before onset of symptoms, and is the most likely cause for
[petitioner’s] GBS”).
As a preliminary note, “[i]t is well-settled that special masters are neither
bound by their own decisions nor by cases from the Court of Federal Claims . . . .”
Rickett v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 468 F. App'x 952, 959 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citing Hanlon v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 40 Fed. Cl. 625, 630 (1998),
aff'd, 191 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has
explicitly noted that special masters may very well come to different conclusions
based on the same set of facts. Lampe v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 219
12

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 73 Filed 06/12/18 Page 13 of 13
F.3d 1357, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But of course, the facts here, though similar, are
not identical. For example, Mr. Eamick relied upon a different expert — one that,
as stated in Section II, made a persuasive case in support of Mr. Eamick’s claim.
But, even more, Mr. Eamick did not rely on the same theory proffered by
Mr. Tompkins. As reviewed in Section IV.A, above, petitioner does not dispute
that the URI was necessary for Mr. Eamick’s GBS to develop. He does dispute,
however, that it was sufficient. Mr. Eamick supports this assertion by
demonstrating that the vast majority of URIs do not develop into GBS and that it is
currently believed that host factors, and not the preceding infection itself, are
critical in determining whether a URI will cause GBS. See exhibit 51 (Hadden) at
7. Dr. Gershwin proposes a cytokine response to hepatitis vaccination as
constituting this host factor in Mr. Eamick’s case and, for the reasons stated above,
this explanation appears persuasive. Based on the evidence in the record, it does
not appear that the respondent presents an alternate explanation for why Mr.
Eamick’s URI caused the onset of his GBS when the vast majority of URIs do not.
While it may be true that most cases of GBS are preceded by an infection, it is not
true that most infections are followed by GBS. Clearly, there is more to the story.
In this way, the absence of an alternate host factor that may have induced the onset
of GBS in Mr. Eamick’s case actually weighs in petitioner’s favor.
V. Conclusion
As the Federal Circuit has noted, cases in the Vaccine Program often have to
navigate an area of science bereft of certainty and absolutes. We, as a society, can
only hope to one day know why Mr. Eamick developed GBS, and a particularly
virulent form of the disease at that. Until that time, the Federal Circuit has stated
that compensation is appropriate when a petitioner can provide evidence of a
reputable medical theory attributing petitioner’s injury to the vaccination, evidence
of an appropriately proximate temporal relationship between the two, and evidence
that the causal association is logical. Mr. Eamick has met this standard and,
therefore, is entitled to compensation under the Vaccine Act.
An order regarding damages will be issued shortly.
s/ Christian J. Moran
Christian J. Moran
Special Master
13

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00519-1
Date issued/filed: 2019-07-24
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 6/26/2019) regarding 87 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Special Master Christian J. Moran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JEREMY EAMICK, * No. 15-519V
* Special Master Christian J. Moran
Petitioner, *
*
v. * Filed: June 26, 2019
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Damages; hepatitis A vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * hepatitis B vaccine; Miller-Fisher;
* Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Edward M, Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner;
Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On May 21, 2015, Jeremy Eamick filed a petition seeking compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa–1
through 34, alleging that the hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningococcal, and tetanus-
diphtheria-pertussis vaccines caused him to suffer the Miller-Fisher variant of
Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”). Following an entitlement hearing, on May 15,
2018, the undersigned ruled that Mr. Eamick is entitled to compensation under the
Vaccine Act for his GBS injury due to the hepatitis A and B vaccines. Ruling,
2018 WL 2926048.
On June 24, 2019, respondent filed a Proffer on Award of Compensation, to
which petitioner agrees. Based upon the record as a whole, the special master
finds the proffer reasonable and that petitioner is entitled to an award of life care
1 The E-Government Act, 44 § 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 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 9
items, lost earnings, pain and suffering damages, and past unreimbursable expenses
as stated in the Proffer. Pursuant to the attached Proffer, the following is awarded
to petitioner:
A. A lump sum payment of $1,217,984.83 representing compensation
for life care expenses expected to be incurred during the first year
after judgment ($17,522.35), lost earnings ($950,125.39), pain and
suffering ($250,000.00), and past unreimbursable expenses ($337.09),
in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Jeremy Eamick.
B. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract, subject to the
conditions described in the proffer, that will provide payments for
the life care items contained in the life care plan attached to the
proffer.
These payments represent 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
15-519V according to this decision and the attached proffer.2
Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Andrew Schick, 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.

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 3 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
JEREMY EAMICK,
Petitioner,
v. No. 15-519V
Special Master Moran
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND ECF
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT'S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
In his Ruling on Entitlement issued on May 15, 2018, the Special Master found that a
preponderance of the evidence supported Jeremy Eamick’s (“petitioner’s”) claim that hepatitis A
and hepatitis B vaccines administered to him on July 17, 2012, caused his Miller-Fisher variant
of Guillain-Barré syndrome. Respondent now Proffers the following regarding the amount of
compensation to be awarded.1
I. Items of Compensation
A. Life Care Items
Respondent engaged life care planner Linda Curtis, RN, MS, CCM, CNLCP, and
petitioner engaged Susan Guth, LCSW, CCM, CLCP, to provide an estimation of petitioner’s
future vaccine-injury related needs. For the purposes of this proffer, the term “vaccine-related”
is as described in the Special Master’s Ruling on Entitlement. All items of compensation
identified in the life care plan are supported by the evidence, and are illustrated by the chart
entitled “Appendix A: Items of Compensation for Jeremy Eamick,” attached hereto as Appendix
1 The parties have no objection to the proffered award of damages. However, respondent
reserves his right to seek review of the Special Master’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-
12(e)(1).
-1-

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 4 of 9
A.2 Respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded all items of compensation set forth in
the life care plan and illustrated by the chart attached as Appendix A. Petitioner agrees.
B. Lost Earnings
The parties agree that based upon the evidence of record, Jeremy Eamick has suffered
past loss of earnings and will suffer a loss of earnings in the future due to his vaccine-related
injuries. Therefore, respondent proffers that Jeremy Eamick should be awarded lost earnings as
provided under the Vaccine Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(3)(A). Respondent proffers that the
appropriate award for Jeremy Eamick’s lost earnings is $950,125.39. Petitioner agrees.
C. Pain and Suffering
Respondent proffers that Jeremy Eamick should be awarded $250,000.00 in actual and
projected pain and suffering. This amount reflects that any award for projected pain and
suffering has been reduced to net present value. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). Petitioner
agrees.
D. Past Unreimbursable Expenses
Evidence supplied by petitioner documents his expenditure of past unreimbursable
expenses related to his vaccine-related injuries. Respondent proffers that petitioner should be
awarded past unreimbursable expenses in the amount of $337.09.
II. Form of the Award
The parties recommend that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made
through a combination of lump sum payments and future annuity payments as described below,
and request that the Special Master’s decision and the Court’s judgment award the following:3
2 The chart at Appendix A illustrates the annual benefits provided by the life care plan.
The annual benefit years run from the date of judgment up to the first anniversary of the date of
judgment, and every year thereafter up to the anniversary of the date of judgment.
-2-

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 5 of 9
A. A lump sum payment of $1,217,984.83, representing compensation for life care
expenses expected to be incurred during the first year after judgment ($17,522.35), lost earnings
($950,125.39), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and past unreimbursable expenses ($337.09), in
the form of a check payable to petitioner, Jeremy Eamick.
B. An amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract,4 subject to the conditions
described below, that will provide payments for the life care items contained in the life care plan,
as illustrated by the chart at Appendix A, attached hereto, paid to the life insurance company5
from which the annuity will be purchased.6 Compensation for Year Two (beginning on the first
anniversary of the date of judgment) and all subsequent years shall be provided through
respondent’s purchase of an annuity, which annuity shall make payments directly to petitioner,
Jeremy Eamick, only so long as Jeremy Eamick is alive at the time a particular payment is due.
At the Secretary’s sole discretion, the periodic payments may be provided to petitioner in
3 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move
the Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
4 In respondent’s discretion, respondent may purchase one or more annuity contracts
from one or more life insurance companies.
5 The Life Insurance Company must have a minimum of $250,000,000 capital and
surplus, exclusive of any mandatory security valuation reserve. The Life Insurance Company
must have one of the following ratings from two of the following rating organizations:
a. A.M. Best Company: A++, A+, A+g, A+p, A+r, or A+s;
b. Moody's Investor Service Claims Paying Rating: Aa3, Aa2, Aa1, or Aaa;
c. Standard and Poor's Corporation Insurer Claims-Paying Ability Rating: AA-,
AA, AA+, or AAA;
d. Fitch Credit Rating Company, Insurance Company Claims Paying Ability
Rating: AA-, AA, AA+, or AAA.
6 Petitioner authorizes the disclosure of certain documents filed by the petitioner in this
case consistent with the Privacy Act and the routine uses described in the National Vaccine
Injury Compensation Program System of Records, No. 09-15-0056.
-3-

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 6 of 9
monthly, quarterly, annual or other installments. The “annual amounts” set forth in the chart at
Appendix A describe only the total yearly sum to be paid to petitioner and do not require that the
payment be made in one annual installment.
1. Growth Rate
Respondent proffers that a four percent (4%) growth rate should be applied to all non-
medical life care items, and a five percent (5%) growth rate should be applied to all medical life
care items. Thus, the benefits illustrated in the chart at Appendix A that are to be paid through
annuity payments should grow as follows: four percent (4%) compounded annually from the date
of judgment for non-medical items, and five percent (5%) compounded annually from the date of
judgment for medical items. Petitioner agrees.
2. Life-contingent annuity
Petitioner will continue to receive the annuity payments from the Life Insurance
Company only so long as he, Jeremy Eamick, is alive at the time that a particular payment is due.
Written notice shall be provided to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Life
Insurance Company within twenty (20) days of Jeremy Eamick’s death.
3. Guardianship
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
III. Summary of Recommended Payments Following Judgment
A. Lump Sum paid to petitioner, Jeremy Eamick: $1,217,984.83
B. An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described
above in section II.B.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
-4-

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 7 of 9
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
CATHARINE E. REEVES
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
/s/LISA A. WATTS
LISA A. WATTS
Senior Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U. S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box l46, Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0146
Direct dial: (202) 616-4099
Dated: June 24, 2019
-5-

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 8 of 9
Appendix A: Items of Compensation for Jeremy Eamick Page 1 of 2
Lump Sum
Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation
ITEMS OF COMPENSATION G.R. * M Year 1 Years 2-15 Year 16 Years 17-25 Years 26-33 Years 34-Life
2019 2020-2033 2034 2035-2043 2044-2051 2052-Life
Tricare Deductible 5% 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00
Medicare Part B Premium 5% M 1,626.00 1,626.00 1,626.00 1,626.00
Primary Care Physician 5% *
Mileage: Primary Care Physician 4% 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08
Neurology 5%
Mileage: Neurology 4% 15.20 15.20 15.20 15.20 15.20 15.20
Pain Management 5% *
Mileage: Pain Management 4% 29.12 29.12 29.12 29.12 29.12 29.12
Physiatry 4% *
Mileage: Physiatry 4% 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.48
Counseling 4% *
Mileage: Counseling 4% 68.88
Care Management 4% M 1,110.00 1,110.00 1,110.00 1,110.00 1,110.00 1,110.00
Gabapentin 5% *
Metho-carbamol 5% *
Wellbutrin 5% *
Naproxen 5% *
Pravastatin 5% *
Hydrochlorothiazide 5% *
Walker 4% 76.99 15.40 15.40 15.40 15.40 15.40
Manual Wheelchair 4% 225.00 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50
Walking Sticks 4% 59.98 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Knee Brace 4% 43.98 43.98 43.98 43.98 43.98 43.98
Elbow Brace 4% 33.98 33.98 33.98 33.98 33.98 33.98
Knee Ice Wrap 4% 59.40 19.80 19.80 19.80 19.80 19.80
Low Back Ice Wrap 4% 59.99 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
Heating Pad 4% 23.98 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80
Shower Chair 4% 28.87 5.77 5.77 5.77 5.77 5.77
Reacher 4% 55.40 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23 9.23
Dressing Aid 4% 39.50 6.58 6.58 6.58 6.58 6.58
Scooter 4% 1,635.00 163.50 163.50 163.50

Case 1:15-vv-00519-UNJ Document 91 Filed 07/24/19 Page 9 of 9
Appendix A: Items of Compensation for Jeremy Eamick Page 2 of 2
Lump Sum
Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation Compensation
ITEMS OF COMPENSATION G.R. * M Year 1 Years 2-15 Year 16 Years 17-25 Years 26-33 Years 34-Life
2019 2020-2033 2034 2035-2043 2044-2051 2052-Life
Scooter Batteries 4% 99.98 99.98 99.98 99.98
Physical Therapy Evaluation 4% *
Mileage: Physical Therapy Evaluation 4% 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04
Physical Therapy 4% *
Mileage: Physical Therapy 4% 12.48 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
YMCA 4% 762.00 762.00 762.00 762.00
Companion Care/Personal Care Att. 4% M 6,864.00 6,864.00 6,864.00 6,864.00 16,425.00 16,425.00
Ancillary Services 4% M 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00
Ancillary Services 4% M 1,848.00 1,848.00 1,848.00 1,848.00 1,848.00
Chair Lift 4% 2,500.00
Scooter Car Carrier 4% 1,294.99 129.50 129.50 129.50
Lost Earnings 950,125.39
Pain and Suffering 250,000.00
Past Unreimbursable Expenses 337.09
Annual Totals 1,217,984.83 14,430.46 17,460.43 14,823.44 21,996.44 20,148.44
Note: Compensation Year 1 consists of the 12 month period following the date of judgment.
Compensation Year 2 consists of the 12 month period commencing on the first anniversary of the date of judgment.
As soon as practicable after entry of judgment, respondent shall make the following payment to petitioner for Yr 1 life care
expenses ($17,522.35), lost earnings ($950,125.39), pain and suffering ($250,000.00), and past unreimbursable
expenses ($337.09): $1,217,984.83.
Annual amounts payable through an annuity for future Compensation Years follow the anniversary of the date of judgment.
Annual amounts shall increase at the rates indicated above in column G.R., compounded annually from the date of judgment.
Items denoted with an asterisk (*) covered by health insurance and/or Medicare.
Items denoted with an "M" payable in twelve monthly installments totaling the annual amount indicated.