VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01005 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01005 Petitioner: Peter A. Voss Filed: 2016-08-15 Decided: 2017-08-17 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2015-01-06 Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 150000 AI-assisted case summary: Peter A. Voss filed a petition on August 15, 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 a Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular-pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on January 6, 2015. Mr. Voss further alleged that he experienced residual effects from the condition for more than six months. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Mr. Voss's GBS or any other injury. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a stipulation filed on June 27, 2017. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the court. The stipulation awarded Mr. Voss a lump sum of $150,000.00, payable by check, as compensation for all damages. This decision was issued on August 17, 2017. The public decision was designated "not to be published" but was posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, with parties having the option to request redaction of confidential information. Petitioner's counsel was Scott B. Taylor of Urban and Taylor, S.C., and respondent's counsel was Sarah C. Duncan of the U.S. Department of Justice. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or the medical expert witnesses involved. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Peter A. Voss alleged that a Tdap vaccine administered on January 6, 2015, caused Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) with residual effects lasting more than six months. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a stipulation to settle the case, which was adopted by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. The stipulation awarded Petitioner a lump sum of $150,000.00 for all damages. The public decision does not detail the specific medical mechanism, expert testimony, or evidence presented regarding causation, other than the parties' agreement to settle. The decision date was August 17, 2017. Petitioner was represented by Scott B. Taylor, and Respondent by Sarah C. Duncan. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01005-0 Date issued/filed: 2017-08-17 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 06/28/2017) regarding 20 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (sb) Copy to parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:16-vv-01005-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/17/17 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 16-1005V (not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PETER A. VOSS, * * Special Master Corcoran * Petitioner, * Filed: June 28, 2017 * v. * * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis; AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“Tdap”); Guillain-Barré Syndrome * (“GBS”). Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Scott B. Taylor, Urban and Taylor, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Petitioner. Sarah C. Duncan, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1 On August 15, 2016, Peter Voss 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 January 6, 2015, Tetanus-diphtheria- acellular-pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine. Petitioner further alleges that he has experienced the residual effects of this condition for more than six months. 1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’s website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 1:16-vv-01005-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/17/17 Page 2 of 7 Respondent denies that the Tdap vaccine caused Petitioner’s GBS or any other injury. Nonetheless both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on June 27, 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 $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-01005-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/17/17 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01005-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/17/17 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01005-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/17/17 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01005-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/17/17 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:16-vv-01005-UNJ Document 30 Filed 08/17/17 Page 7 of 7