VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01289
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01289
Petitioner: Alfred Anderson
Filed: 2016-11-29
Decided: 2017-01-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-12-09
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 218105

AI-assisted case summary:
Alfred Anderson filed a petition on November 29, 2016, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on December 9, 2014, and experienced residual effects for more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu vaccination caused Mr. Anderson's alleged GBS. However, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on November 28, 2016. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Mr. Anderson a lump sum of $218,105.26, comprising $5,947.88 for first-year life care expenses, $150,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $62,157.38 for past unreimbursable expenses. Additionally, an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract was awarded, to be paid to the life insurance company. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. The specific mechanism of causation was not detailed in the public decision.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Alfred Anderson alleged that his Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) was caused by an influenza vaccine received on December 9, 2014. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a stipulation to settle the case. The stipulation awarded Petitioner a lump sum of $218,105.26 for first-year life care expenses, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses, plus an amount for an annuity. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision on January 3, 2017. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused GBS.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01289-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-01-03
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/29/2016) Regarding 24 DECISION: Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ed) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1289V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Special Master Corcoran
ALFRED ANDERSON, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: November 29, 2016
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Alison H. Haskins, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner.
Linda S. Renzi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 30, 2015, Alfred Anderson 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 December 9, 2014, 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-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 9
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s flu vaccination caused his alleged GBS, or any other
injury or condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions,
agreed in a stipulation (filed on November 28, 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 $218,105.26 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, representing
compensation for first year life care expenses ($5,947.88), pain and suffering
($150,000.00), and past unreimbursable expenses ($62,157.38); and
 An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in Stipulation ¶ 10,
paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased (the “Life
Insurance Company”).
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-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 7 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:15-vv-01289-UNJ Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 9 of 9