VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01525
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01525
Petitioner: Gary Harris
Filed: 2017-01-18
Decided: 2017-03-16
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-12-21
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 200000

AI-assisted case summary:
Gary Harris filed a petition on January 18, 2017, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on December 21, 2014, and that he experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months. The respondent denied that the flu vaccination caused his alleged GBS or any other injury. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on January 17, 2017. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision in the case. The stipulation awarded Gary Harris a lump sum of $200,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages. The Special Master approved this award and directed the clerk to enter judgment. Petitioner was represented by Michael A. Baseluos of Baseluos Law Firm, and respondent was represented by Amy P. Kokot of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Gary Harris filed a petition on January 18, 2017, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on December 21, 2014, and experienced residual effects for more than six months. The respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation, filed January 17, 2017. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as his decision. The stipulation awarded Petitioner Gary Harris $200,000.00 as compensation for all damages. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, medical experts, onset, symptoms, tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Petitioner was represented by Michael A. Baseluos, and respondent was represented by Amy P. Kokot.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_15-vv-01525-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-03-16
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 01/18/2017) regarding 28 DECISION: Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ed) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:15-vv-01525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 15-1525V
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Special Master Corcoran
GARY HARRIS, *
*
Petitioner, * Filed: January 18, 2017
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine;
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”).
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael A. Baseluos, Baseluos Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner.
Amy P. Kokot, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 15, 2015, Gary Harris filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleged that he
suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of his December 21, 2014, receipt of
the influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Moreover, Petitioner alleged that he experienced residual effects of
this injury for more than six months.
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,
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-01525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/16/17 Page 2 of 7
agreed in a stipulation (filed on January 17, 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 $200,000.00 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-01525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/16/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/16/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/16/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/16/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:15-vv-01525-UNJ Document 37 Filed 03/16/17 Page 7 of 7