VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00928
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00928
Petitioner: Ricardo Galinato
Filed: 2016-09-30
Decided: 2016-11-17
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2012-11-15
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 280000

AI-assisted case summary:
Ricardo Galinato filed a petition on September 30, 2016, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on November 15, 2012, and that he experienced residual effects from the injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that the vaccine caused Petitioner's alleged injuries or any other condition. Despite these positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on September 30, 2016. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision for awarding damages. The stipulation awarded Ricardo Galinato a lump sum of $280,000.00, payable to Petitioner, intended to compensate for all damages available under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The decision was finalized on November 17, 2016. Petitioner was represented by Danielle A. Strait of Maglio, Christopher, and Toale, PA, and Respondent was represented by Alexis B. Babcock of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, diagnostic tests, treatments, or the specific mechanism of causation.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Ricardo Galinato alleged that his November 15, 2012, influenza vaccine caused Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, which was adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The stipulation awarded Petitioner a lump sum of $280,000.00 for all damages. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused GBS. Attorneys for Petitioner were Danielle A. Strait, Maglio, Christopher, and Toale, PA, and for Respondent was Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice. Decision date was November 17, 2016.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-00928-0
Date issued/filed: 2016-11-17
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 09/30/2016) Regarding 26 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (sb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-00928-UNJ Document 30 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-928V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Special Master Corcoran
RICARDO GALINATO, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: September 30, 2016
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle A. Strait, Maglio, Christopher, and Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On August 25, 2015, Ricardo Galinato filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that he
suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his November 15, 2012, receipt of
the influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he 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-00928-UNJ Document 30 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by his flu
vaccination, and further denies that the vaccine caused any other injury or condition. Nonetheless
both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on
September 30, 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 $280,000.00 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-00928-UNJ Document 30 Filed 11/17/16 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00928-UNJ Document 30 Filed 11/17/16 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00928-UNJ Document 30 Filed 11/17/16 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00928-UNJ Document 30 Filed 11/17/16 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-00928-UNJ Document 30 Filed 11/17/16 Page 7 of 7