VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00659
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00659
Petitioner: Christine Marquis
Filed: 2016-10-27
Decided: 2016-11-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2012-11-06
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 195000

AI-assisted case summary:
Christine Marquis filed a petition on October 27, 2016, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on November 6, 2012, and experienced residual effects for more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu vaccination caused her alleged GBS or any other injury, and further denied that her current disabilities were sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite these positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on October 27, 2016. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and adopted the stipulation as the decision. The stipulation awarded Christine Marquis a lump sum of $195,000.00, payable to her, as compensation for all damages. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses involved in this case. Lawrence R. Cohan represented the Petitioner, and Michael P. Milmoe represented the Respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Christine Marquis alleged that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on November 6, 2012, and experienced residual effects for more than six months. Respondent denied that the flu vaccination caused her alleged GBS or any other injury. The parties reached a stipulation to settle the case, agreeing that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation, awarding a lump sum of $195,000.00 to Petitioner. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused GBS. The case was settled via stipulation, with Petitioner represented by Lawrence R. Cohan and Respondent represented by Michael P. Milmoe.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00659-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-11-23
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 10/27/2016) Regarding 25 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (sb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00659-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-659V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Special Master Corcoran
CHRISTINE MARQUIS, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: October 27, 2016
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner.
Michael P. Milmoe, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On June 25, 2015, Christine Marquis filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that she
suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of her November 6, 2012, receipt of
the influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that she experienced residual effects of
this injury for more than six months.
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, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). As
provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the 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 Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660,
100 Stat. 3758, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 through 34 (2012) (“Vaccine Act” or “the Act”).
Individual section references hereafter will be to § 300aa of the Act (but will omit that statutory prefix).

Case 1:15-vv-00659-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s flu vaccination caused her alleged GBS, or any other
injury, and further denies that her current disabilities are sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.
Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation
(filed on October 27, 2016) that the issues before them could be settled, and that a decision should
be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
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 $195,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner.
Stipulation ¶ 8. This amount 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 1:15-vv-00659-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/23/16 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00659-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/23/16 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00659-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/23/16 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00659-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/23/16 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00659-UNJ Document 29 Filed 11/23/16 Page 7 of 7