VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00690
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00690
Petitioner: Amy Dunlap
Filed: 2017-04-26
Decided: 2017-12-11
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-10-07
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 174795

AI-assisted case summary:
Amy Dunlap filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on June 13, 2016, alleging she suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) following an influenza vaccination on October 7, 2014. The petition stated the vaccination was administered in the United States, that Ms. Dunlap suffered residual effects for more than six months, and that there had been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Ms. Dunlap's alleged GBS or any other injury, and denied that her current disabilities were sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation for damages on April 26, 2017. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. The stipulation awarded Ms. Dunlap compensation in the form of a lump sum of $174,795.44, payable to her, representing all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The court approved this amount, and judgment was to be entered accordingly. Petitioner's counsel was Lawrence Cohan of Anapol Weiss, and respondent's counsel was Lisa Watts of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Amy Dunlap alleged Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) following an influenza vaccination on October 7, 2014. Respondent denied causation. The parties filed a joint stipulation for damages, which was approved by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. The stipulation awarded petitioner a lump sum of $174,795.44 for all items of damages. The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, medical experts, onset, symptoms, tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00690-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-12-11
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/27/2017) regarding 27 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer ( Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey.)(mpj) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00690-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-690V
Filed: April 27, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AMY DUNLAP, *
*
Petitioner, * Joint Stipulation on Damages;
v. * Influenza (“Flu”); Guillain-Barre
* Syndrome (“GBS”);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lawrence Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.
Lisa Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On June 13, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,2 (the “Vaccine
Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”)
following an influenza (“flu”) vaccination on October 7, 2014. Petition at 1; Stipulation,
filed April 26, 2017, at ¶ 1. Petitioner further alleges that the vaccination was
administered within the United States, that she suffered the residual effects of her
injuries for more than six months, and that there has been no prior award or settlement
of a civil action for damages on her behalf. Petition at 1, 6-7; Stipulation at ¶¶ 3-5.
“Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged GBS, or any other
injury, and further denies that petitioner’s current disabilities are sequelae of a vaccine-
related injury.” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the
undersigned intends to 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 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of
Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to
identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits
within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for
ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:16-vv-00690-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 7
Nevertheless, on April 26, 2017, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned
finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding
damages, on the terms set forth therein.
The parties stipulate that petitioner shall receive the following compensation:
A lump sum of $174,795.44 in the form of a check payable to petitioner.
Stipulation at ¶ 8. This amount represents compensation for all items of
damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). Id.
The undersigned approves the requested amount for petitioner’s compensation.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of
the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Nora Beth Dorsey
Nora Beth Dorsey
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:16-vv-00690-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/11/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00690-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/11/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00690-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/11/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00690-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/11/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00690-UNJ Document 36 Filed 12/11/17 Page 7 of 7