VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01318
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01318
Petitioner: John Greeling
Filed: 2017-04-25
Decided: 2017-06-07
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-02-07
Condition: Transverse Myelitis
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 220000

AI-assisted case summary:
John Greeling filed a petition on April 25, 2017, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from Transverse Myelitis (TM) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on February 7, 2014, and that he experienced residual effects for more than six months. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, respondent, denied that the flu vaccination caused Mr. Greeling's alleged TM or any other injury. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on April 25, 2017. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision in awarding damages. The stipulation awarded Mr. Greeling a lump sum of $220,000.00, payable to him via check, representing compensation for all damages available under the Act. Petitioner's counsel was Danielle A. Strait of Maglio, Christopher & Toale, and respondent's counsel was Robert P. Coleman, III of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was designated "not to be published" but would be made public in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, with parties having fourteen days to request redaction of confidential information.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner John Greeling alleged that his February 7, 2014, influenza vaccine caused Transverse Myelitis (TM) with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, filed April 25, 2017, and adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on June 7, 2017. The stipulation awarded Petitioner $220,000.00 as full compensation. The specific medical theory of causation, expert testimony, or mechanism of injury was not detailed in the provided public decision text, as the case was resolved by stipulation. Petitioner was represented by Danielle A. Strait, and Respondent by Robert P. Coleman, III.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01318-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-06-07
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/25/2017) regarding 27 DECISION Stipulation: Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sb) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01318-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1318V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Special Master Corcoran
JOHN GREELING, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: April 25, 2017
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Transverse
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Myelitis (“TM”).
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Danielle A. Strait, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Robert P. Coleman, III, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On November 4, 2015, John Greeling filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges that he
suffers from Transverse Myelitis (“TM”), as a result of his February 7, 2014, receipt of the
influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he experienced residual effects of this
injury for more than six months.
1 This Decision has been designated “not to be published,” which means I am not directing it to be posted on the Court
of Federal Claims’s website. However, it will nevertheless be made public 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 in its present form will be available. 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”).

Case 1:15-vv-01318-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/17 Page 2 of 7
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s flu vaccination caused his alleged TM, or any other
injury or condition. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions,
agreed in a stipulation (filed on April 25, 2017) 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 $220,000.00 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-01318-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01318-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01318-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01318-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01318-UNJ Document 32 Filed 06/07/17 Page 7 of 7