VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01130
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01130
Petitioner: David Holmes
Filed: 2017-07-10
Decided: 2018-01-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2014-10-07
Condition: Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 200000

AI-assisted case summary:
David Holmes filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on July 10, 2017. He alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) caused by his influenza vaccination on October 7, 2014. Mr. Holmes further alleged that he experienced residual effects of this injury for more than six months and that there had been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of his alleged GBS. The respondent denied that the vaccine caused petitioner's alleged injury or his current condition. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties filed a joint stipulation for damages on July 10, 2017. Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the decision of the Court. Pursuant to the stipulation, David Holmes was awarded a lump sum of $200,000.00, payable to the petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all items of damages available under the Vaccine Act. The decision was entered on January 23, 2018. Petitioner was represented by Ronald Craig Homer of Conway, Homer, P.C., and respondent was represented by Alexis B. Babcock of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner David Holmes alleged that his Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) was caused-in-fact by his October 7, 2014 influenza vaccination. The respondent denied that the vaccine caused the alleged injury or current condition. The parties filed a joint stipulation for damages, which was approved by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. The stipulation resulted in an award of $200,000.00 to the petitioner. The public decision does not describe the specific medical theory of causation, expert testimony, or the mechanism by which the vaccine allegedly caused GBS. The case was resolved via stipulation, not litigation on the merits of causation. Petitioner counsel was Ronald Craig Homer, and respondent counsel was Alexis B. Babcock. The decision date was January 23, 2018.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01130-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-01-23
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 7/10/2017) regarding 25 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer. Signed by Chief Special Master Nora Beth Dorsey. (rp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01130-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-1130V
Filed: July 10, 2017
UNPUBLISHED
DAVID HOLMES,
Special Processing Unit (SPU); Joint
Stipulation on Damages; Influenza
Petitioner,
(Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre
v.
Syndrome (GBS)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.
Alexis B. Babcock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Dorsey, Chief Special Master:
On September 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 he suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) that
was caused-in-fact by his October 7, 2014 influenza (“flu”) vaccination. Petition at 1;
Stipulation, filed July 10, 2017, at ¶ 4. Petitioner further alleges that he experienced
residual effects of this injury for more than six months and that there has been no prior
award or settlement of a civil action for damages as a result of his alleged GBS.
Petition at 24-25; Stipulation at ¶¶ 4-5. “Respondent denies that petitioner’s alleged
injury was caused-in-fact by his flu vaccination, and denies that the vaccine caused any
other injury or his current condition. ” Stipulation at ¶ 6.
Nevertheless, on July 10, 2017, the parties filed the attached joint stipulation,
stating that a decision should be entered awarding compensation. The undersigned
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-01130-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 7
finds the stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding
damages, on the terms set forth therein.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Stipulation, the undersigned
awards the following compensation:
A lump sum of $200,000.00 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-01130-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/23/18 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01130-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/23/18 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01130-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/23/18 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01130-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/23/18 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01130-UNJ Document 35 Filed 01/23/18 Page 7 of 7