VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01142
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01142
Petitioner: Ismael Blanco
Filed: 2016-09-14
Decided: 2018-05-02
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2013-10-09
Condition: Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 190000

AI-assisted case summary:
Ismael Blanco filed a petition on September 14, 2016, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) as a result of an Influenza ("flu") vaccine he received on October 9, 2013. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused Mr. Blanco's CIDP. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties agreed to settle the case. A stipulation was filed on March 12, 2018, agreeing that the issues could be settled and that Mr. Blanco should be awarded compensation. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Mr. Blanco a lump sum of $190,000.00, payable to him, as compensation for all damages. The clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. The attorneys involved were Nancy Routh Meyers for the Petitioner and Claudia Barnes Gangi for the Respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Ismael Blanco alleged that a flu vaccine administered on October 9, 2013, caused his Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP). The Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a settlement via stipulation filed on March 12, 2018, agreeing to an award of $190,000.00. Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation as the decision. The public text does not specify the theory of causation, the mechanism of injury, or any expert testimony. The award was a lump sum of $190,000.00. The decision date was May 2, 2018. Petitioner's counsel was Nancy Routh Meyers, and Respondent's counsel was Claudia Barnes Gangi.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_16-vv-01142-0
Date issued/filed: 2018-05-02
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 3/12/2018) Regarding 30 DECISION Stipulation (Signed by Special Master Brian H. Corcoran). (cr) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:16-vv-01142-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 16-1142V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ISMAEL BLANCO, * Special Master Corcoran
*
*
Petitioner, * Filed: March 12, 2018
*
v. *
* Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating
AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”); Influenza (“flu”)
* Vaccine.
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nancy Routh Meyers, Ward Black Law, Greensboro, NC, for Petitioner.
Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On September 14, 2016, Ismael Blanco filed a petition seeking compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program”).2 The petition alleges that
Mr. Blanco suffered from Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (“CIDP”) as a
result of his October 9, 2013 Influenza (“flu”) vaccine.
Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused Petitioner’s CIDP. Nonetheless both parties,
while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed in a stipulation (filed on March 12, 2018)
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 Decision 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-01142-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/02/18 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 $190,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner, Mr. Ismael
Blanco.
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-01142-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/02/18 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01142-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/02/18 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01142-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/02/18 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01142-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/02/18 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:16-vv-01142-UNJ Document 35 Filed 05/02/18 Page 7 of 7