VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00846
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00846
Petitioner: Gerald O’Connor
Filed: 2017-04-05
Decided: 2017-05-03
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2014-04-03
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 150000

AI-assisted case summary:
Gerald O’Connor filed a petition on April 5, 2017, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he received a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on April 3, 2014, and subsequently developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), experiencing residual effects for more than six months. The respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Mr. O’Connor's injury or his current condition. Despite maintaining their positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on April 5, 2017. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it reasonable, adopting it as the court's decision. The stipulation awarded Mr. O’Connor a lump sum of $150,000.00 as compensation for all damages. The court approved this award and directed the clerk to enter judgment. Petitioner was represented by Edward M. Kraus of the Law Offices of Chicago Kent, and Respondent was represented by James George Bartolotto of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the specific onset of symptoms, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Gerald O’Connor alleged that he received a Tdap vaccine on April 3, 2014, and subsequently developed Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties settled via stipulation, and the Special Master adopted the stipulation as the decision. The award was $150,000.00. The theory of causation was "Off-Table." The public decision does not detail the specific mechanism of injury, expert testimony, or the breakdown of the award beyond the lump sum. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran issued the decision on May 3, 2017. Petitioner's counsel was Edward M. Kraus, and Respondent's counsel was James George Bartolotto.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-00846-0
Date issued/filed: 2017-05-03
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 04/05/2017) Regarding 20 DECISION - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (ed) Copy to parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-00846-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-846V
(Not to be Published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
GERALD O’CONNOR, *
* Filed: April 5, 2017
Petitioner, *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
v. * Tetanus Diphtheria Accellular Pertussis
* (“Tdap”); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”).
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
James George Bartolotto, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On July 19, 2016, Gerald O’Connor filed a petition seeking compensation under the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 Petitioner alleges he suffered from
Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result of his receipt of the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis
(“Tdap”) vaccine on April 3, 2014. Moreover, Petitioner alleges that he experienced the residual
effects of this injury for more than six months.
Respondent denies that Petitioner’s alleged injuries were caused-in-fact by his vaccination
and denies that the Tdap vaccine caused any other injury or his current condition. Nonetheless both
parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on April 5, 2017)
1 This decision will be posted 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 1:16-vv-00846-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 7
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 $150,000.00 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 1:16-vv-00846-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/03/17 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00846-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/03/17 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00846-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/03/17 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00846-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/03/17 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-00846-UNJ Document 28 Filed 05/03/17 Page 7 of 7