VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01121
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01121
Petitioner: Heather Adams
Filed: 2017-08-21
Decided: 2024-07-23
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-11-08
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Outcome: entitlement_granted_pending_damages
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Heather Adams filed a petition alleging Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 8, 2016. She claimed her GBS was a Table injury. Ms. Adams' medical history included prior fatigue and headaches, and she received a flu vaccine on November 8, 2016. Within days, she experienced progressive weakness, numbness, and tingling, leading to hospitalization. Her treating physicians, including Dr. Edgar, diagnosed her with GBS, noting rapid progression and initiating IVIG treatment. While some initial symptoms were atypical, her condition ultimately met the criteria for GBS, including bilateral limb weakness, areflexia, and a monophasic illness pattern with stabilization after treatment. Although one physician, Dr. Lajara-Nanson, questioned the GBS diagnosis 18 months later, attributing her symptoms to other conditions like carpal tunnel syndrome and meralgia paresthetica, her treating physicians and petitioner's expert, Dr. Hoke, maintained the GBS diagnosis. Respondent's expert, Dr. Chaudhry, argued for alternative diagnoses like CIDP or TM, citing symptom fluctuations and lack of specific testing. However, the court found that the treating physicians' diagnoses were entitled to great weight and that the evidence supported a GBS diagnosis. The court determined that Ms. Adams' GBS onset occurred within the Table's 3-42 day window and that she met the Qualification and Aids to Interpretation (QAI) criteria for a Table GBS claim. The court found that respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an infection, rather than the vaccine, caused her GBS. Therefore, entitlement to compensation was granted, and the case was to proceed to damages.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01121-0
Date issued/filed: 2024-08-19
Pages: 29
Docket text: PUBLIC RULING (Originally filed: 07/23/2024) regarding 67 Ruling on Entitlement. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (dkj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 1 of 29
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1121V
Filed: July 23, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HEATHER ADAMS, *
*
Petitioner, *
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leah Durant, Esq., Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Ilana Greenberg, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
Roth, Special Master:
On August 21, 2017, Heather Adams (“Ms. Adams” or “petitioner”) filed a petition for
compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges
that she suffered from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) after receiving an influenza (“flu”)
vaccine on November 8, 2016. See Petition, ECF No. 1.
I. Issues to be Decided
The issues to be decided are whether petitioner suffered from GBS, and if so, whether the
Table criteria for GBS have been satisfied.
Petitioner argues that she suffered from GBS and has met the requirements of a Table GBS
claim. She argues that the onset of her GBS occurred within 3-42 days of vaccination and virtually
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made publicly
accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or at
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002.
44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means
the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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 finds that the identified material fits within this
definition, such material will be redacted 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 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 29
all of her treating physicians attribute her symptoms to GBS, despite the presence of a few
“atypical” features. Motion at 6, ECF No. 56 (citing Pet. Ex. 2 at 59, 109; Pet. Ex. 4 at 52, 54-55;
Pet. Ex. 5 at 59; Pet. Ex. 6 at 11-12; Pet. Ex. 8 at 1, 4, 7, 10-11, 13; Pet. Ex. 13 at 1; Pet. Ex. 14 at
1, 5, 9-10).
Respondent argues that petitioner failed to demonstrate by preponderant evidence that she
suffers from GBS or from any other neurological injury caused by the flu vaccine. Therefore, the
petition should be dismissed. Response at 2, ECF No. 58.
II. Background
A. Guillain-Barré Syndrome
The supporting literature filed by both petitioner and respondent show that Guillain-Barré
syndrome (“GBS”) is an immune-mediated demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy with a broad
clinical spectrum characterized by different patterns of nerve conduction failure resulting in
symmetrical progressive muscle weakness with loss of reflexes. Pet. Ex. 173 at 1; see Pet. Ex. 214
at 1, Resp. Ex. A, Tab 15 at 1. “The cardinal clinical features consist of progressive relatively
symmetrical weakness, mild sensory symptoms and areflexia”, and the cranial and respiratory
muscles can be affected as well. Id.; see also Pet. Ex. 206 at 1. GBS is usually preceded by infection
or other immune stimulation that induces an aberrant autoimmune response targeting peripheral
nerves and their spinal roots. Resp. Ex. A, Tab 17 at 1. Two-thirds of GBS patients report preceding
symptoms of a respiratory or gastrointestinal infection within four weeks of onset of weakness. Id.
at 2. C-jejuni, cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, influenza A virus, mycoplasma pneumonia,
and haemophilus influenzae virus have all been associated with GBS. Id. “Cases of Guillain-Barre
syndrome have also been reported shortly after vaccination with Semple rabies vaccine and various
types of influenza A vaccine.” Id. at 2; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 28 at 1-2. In 1976, 100,000 people who
were vaccinated for H1N1 influenza A virus developed GBS. Resp. Ex. A, Tab 19 at 2.
The key presenting symptom in most patients is rapidly progressive bilateral weakness,
with weakness classically described as ascending and starting in the distal lower extremities, “but
can start more proximally in the legs or arms.” Resp. Ex. A, Tab 110 at 5. In about 10% of patients,
weakness begins in the arms or facial muscles. Resp. Ex. A, Tab 211 at 2. In more than 80% of
patients, weakness is accompanied by paresthesias in the hands and feet, but sensory abnormalities
on examination are frequently mild. Id. EMG/NCS are valuable for confirming a diagnosis of GBS
3 Forsberg et al., Residual disability 10 years after falling ill in Guillain-Barré syndrome: A prospective follow-up
study, 10 J. NEUROLOGICAL SCI. 1016 (2012), filed as “Pet. Ex. 17.”
4 Marcel P. J. Garssen et al., Nerve conduction studies in relation to residual fatigue in Guillain-Barré syndrome, 253
J. NEUROLOGY 851 (2006), filed as “Pet. Ex. 21.”
5 Hugh J. Willison et al., Guillain-Barré syndrome, 388 LANCET 717 (2016), filed as “Resp. Ex. A, Tab 1.”
6 Tiina Rekand et al., Fatigue, pain and muscle weakness are frequent after Guillain-Barré and poliomyelitis, 256 J.
NEUROLOGY 349 (2009), filed as “Pet. Ex. 20.”
7 Willison et al., supra note 5.
8 Francine J. Vriesendorp, Guillain-Barré syndrome in adults: Clinical features and diagnosis, UPTODATE (Oct. 8,
2019), https://uptodate.com, filed as “Resp. Ex. A, Tab 2.”
9 Willison et al., supra note 5.
10 Id.
11 Vriesendorp, supra note 8.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 3 of 29
but is not required for diagnostic or treatment purposes. EMG/NCS can also provide some
information regarding prognosis and help with classifying variants. Id. at 8. GBS is classically
known for albuminocytological dissociation, which is the combination of a normal CSF white
blood cell count and an elevated CSF protein level. CSF is important in diagnosing GBS and
excluding alternative diagnoses. Resp. Ex. A, Tab 212at 7. Albuminocytological dissociation is
present in up to 66% of patients one week after onset of symptoms and in greater than 75% of
patients three weeks after onset. Id. at 3, 7. “A normal CSF protein is found in one-third to one-
half of patients when tested earlier than one week after symptom onset and therefore does not
exclude the diagnosis of GBS.” Id. at 7. Features such as marked persistent asymmetry of weakness
and bowel and bladder dysfunction at onset make a GBS diagnosis doubtful. Id. at 9. “…CSF is
examined mainly to exclude disorders that are associated with pleocytosis, instead of seeking
confirmation of the diagnosis Guillain-Barre syndrome by demonstrating an increased protein
concentration.” Resp. Ex. A, Tab 313 at 10.
The acute progression of limb weakness, often with sensory and cranial nerve involvement
one to two weeks after immune stimulation, proceeds to its peak clinical deficit in two to four
weeks:
When patients present with rapidly progressive paralysis, the diagnosis of Guillain-
Barré syndrome needs to be made as soon as possible. Although establishment of
the diagnosis in typical cases is usually straightforward, there are many clinical and
investigative components to consider, especially in atypical cases. The diagnosis is
largely based on clinical patterns because diagnostic biomarkers are not available
for most variants of the syndrome.
Resp. Ex. A, Tab 114 at 1. IVIG or plasma exchange has proven beneficial and is crucial, especially
in patients with rapidly progressive weakness. Id.
GBS was initially thought to be a single disorder but is now recognized as a heterogeneous
syndrome with several variant forms, each with distinguishing clinical pathophysiologic and
pathologic features. See Resp. Ex. A, Tab 215 at 4-7.
Pain, fatigue, and muscle weakness are the most common complaints following GBS. Pet.
Ex. 2016 at 4. Most patients show relatively good neurological recovery after GBS, but severe
fatigue and endurance intolerance can be disabling long-term effects. Pet. Ex. 2117 at 1. The
underlying pathophysiology of fatigue in patients who have recovered from GBS is unknown. Id.
Three-quarters of all patients reported fatigue that affects their quality of life, and fatigue is more
prevalent in females and patients over the age of 50. Pet. Ex. 1818 at 1, 3. There was no significant
12 Vriesendorp, supra note 8.
13 Christiaan Fokke et al., Diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome and validation of Brighton criteria, 137 BRAIN 33
(2014), filed as “Resp. Ex. A, Tab 3.”
14 Willison et al., supra note 5.
15 Vriesendorp, supra note 8.
16 Rekand et al, supra note 6.
17 Garssen et al., supra note 4.
18 M.P.J. Garssen et al., Residual fatigue is independent of antecedent events and disease severity in Guillain-Barré
syndrome, 253 J. NEUROLOGY 1143 (2006), filed as “Pet. Ex. 18.”
3

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 4 of 29
relationship found between functional disability at nadir, clinical variables, and antecedent events
or infections. Id.
In one study, patients across all GBS variants reported pain, and most described it as
moderate to severe. One-third of patients reported pain as an initial symptom occurring up to two
weeks before the onset of weakness, and two-thirds of patients reported pain during the acute
phase, within the first three weeks after onset of their condition. 38% of patients had pain within
the first year. Pet. Ex. 1919 at 3. Anxiety and depression were also reported in the first year
following GBS and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“CIDP”), with physical
activity noted to bring significant relief. Id. at 4.
B. Procedural History
The petition was filed on August 21, 2017, and assigned to the Special Processing Unit
(“SPU”). Petition, ECF No. 1. On September 5, 2017, petitioner filed medical records, an affidavit,
and a statement of completion. Petitioner’s Exhibits (“Pet. Ex.”) 1-7, ECF Nos. 7-8.
An initial status conference was held on October 11, 2017. Respondent filed a status report
identifying records that appeared outstanding on April 9, 2018, and petitioner filed the outstanding
records and a statement of completion on May 15, 2018. ECF No. 15; Pet. Ex. 8-10, ECF No. 18-
19. Respondent then requested additional records on June 14, 2018, which were filed with a
statement of completion on July 19, 2018. ECF No. 20; Pet. Ex. 11-13, ECF Nos. 22-23.
On October 18, 2018, respondent advised by status report that he was willing to engage in
settlement discussions. ECF No. 28. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations for
approximately six months. ECF Nos. 29-35. On May 10, 2019, petitioner filed a status report
advising that despite respondent’s willingness to negotiate on a litigative risk basis, respondent
had not yet filed a Rule 4(c) Report with his view of the case, and petitioner’s counsel felt there
was insufficient information to advise her client about respondent’s settlement offer. ECF No. 36.
Respondent then filed his Rule 4(c) Report on June 27, 2019, recommending against
compensation because petitioner’s symptoms and diagnosis “do not fit squarely within the QAI
for [GBS]” and there was a lack of confirmatory diagnostic testing. ECF No. 37; ECF No. 38 at 7.
The case was transferred from SPU to the undersigned on July 16, 2019. ECF Nos. 39-40.
At an initial status conference on November 1, 2019, petitioner advised that she would like
to proceed with the filing of expert reports. ECF No. 42.
Petitioner filed expert reports from Dr. Hoke with corresponding medical literature. Pet.
Ex. 15-21, ECF Nos. 46-47; Pet. Ex. 22, ECF No. 52; Pet. Ex. 23, ECF No. 55. Respondent filed
expert reports and literature from Dr. Chaudhry. Respondent’s Exhibit (“Resp. Ex.”) A-B, ECF
No. 49; Resp. Ex. C, ECF No. 53.
19 Ingemar S.J. Merkies & Bernd C. Kieseier, Fatigue, Pain, Anxiety and Depression in Guillain-Barré Syndrome and
Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy, 75 EUR. NEUROLOGY 199 (2016), filed as “Pet. Ex.
19.”
4

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 5 of 29
On May 23, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for Ruling on the Record. Motion, ECF No.
56. Respondent filed a response on August 30, 2021. Response, ECF No. 58. Petitioner filed a
reply on October 25, 2021. Reply, ECF No. 61. Thereafter, respondent filed a response to
petitioner’s reply on February 3, 2022. Supp. Response, ECF No. 64.
Having determined that the parties have had a full and fair opportunity to present their
cases, it is appropriate to resolve this issue without a hearing. See Vaccine Rule 8(d); Vaccine Rule
3(b)(2); Kreizenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(noting that “special masters must determine that the record is comprehensive and fully developed
before ruling on the record.”). Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for resolution.
C. Factual History
1. Medical History Prior to the Flu Vaccine
Petitioner’s past medical history includes low vitamin D, headaches, fatigue, daytime
somnolence, lethargy, and incidences of fainting. Pet. Ex. 2 at 5, 7, 11, 17, 31-32, 39. Petitioner
was prescribed oral phentermine, phendimetrazine, and B12 HCG injections for weight loss. See
generally Pet. Ex. 9. Petitioner also suffered from polycystic ovarian syndrome (“PCOS”) with
irregular periods for which she was prescribed Metformin and Provera. Pet. Ex. 10 at 2.
On October 11, 2016, petitioner presented to her PCP with a host of complaints including
headaches, hair loss, inability to lose weight, and feeling “always tired.” Pet. Ex. 2 at 46. She was
assessed with fatigue and labs were ordered. Id.
Petitioner returned to the PCP on October 31, 2016, with a sore throat for about a week,
cough, wheezing, and chest tightness when breathing. She had no fever, body aches, or headache
and the examination was normal. She was diagnosed with bronchitis, prescribed azithromycin, and
advised to rest, hydrate, and use antipyretics and albuterol as needed. Pet. Ex. 2 at 48.
On November 8, 2016, petitioner filled out a flu screening form that she was healthy and
received the subject influenza vaccine in her right arm. Pet. Ex. 2 at 50; Pet. Ex. 1 at 1.
2. Medical History Following the Flu Vaccine
On December 7, 2016, petitioner presented to the PCP with one month of head and chest
congestion, nasal drainage, dry cough, and bilateral earache. She had previously been prescribed
a Z-pack and felt better but became ill again. She did not have a headache, fever, limb weakness,
myalgias, arthralgias, or gait or balance issues. Pet. Ex. 2 at 51. Neurological examination was
normal. She was diagnosed with acute sinusitis and prescribed Bactrim and cough medicine. Id. at
52-53.
Four days later, on December 11, 2016, petitioner presented to Jane Phillips Medical
Center Emergency Room (“ER”) with weakness and inability to use her hands or straighten her
fingers. She reported gradual onset of weakness, fatigue, and abdominal pain with nausea and
vomiting. Pet. Ex. 5 at 95. Examination found no focal neurological deficits, intact cranial nerves,
5

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 6 of 29
and equal bilateral motor strength with a normal sensory examination. Patellar and Achilles
reflexes were 2/5. Gait and speech were normal. Pet. Ex. 5 at 97. Laboratory results showed
elevated white blood count (“WBC”), creatinine, glucose, and neutrophils. Id. at 98. A chest x-ray
was clear, and a head CT was negative. Id. at 98-99, 112, 113. She reported onset of symptoms on
Friday, a recent sinus infection, and a flu shot one month ago. Pet. Ex. 2 at 66. The record
documented upper extremity weakness but no signs of GBS at this time. Pet. Ex. 5 at 100, 102.
She was administered IV fluids and discharged home to follow up with her PCP. Id. at 107. She
needed assistance dressing and reported worsening weakness since arrival to the ER. Id. She also
reported difficulty urinating but refused a straight catheter and requested a pregnancy test. Id. at
118.
Petitioner presented to her PCP the next day for follow-up of generalized motor weakness
in her upper and lower extremities. An upper respiratory infection over the past month was noted,
treated with azithromycin and Bactrim with no fever, chills, body aches, cough, congestion,
shortness of breath, or wheezing. Pet. Ex. 2 at 55. Petitioner reported some dizziness and numbness
and tingling in her hands and feet on Friday, and weakness in her arms and legs on Saturday when
she awoke. Her symptoms worsened yesterday. Id. She went to the ER, had bloodwork, x-rays,
and a head CT and was told it may be a reaction to Bactrim. Id. She now complained of a severe
inability to move her legs and arms with numbness and tingling in her hands and feet. There was
no facial weakness, dizziness, vertigo, blurred vision, speech problems, incontinence, or pain, but
she was exhausted. Id. There was weakness on examination but sensory was intact. The impression
was questionable GBS. She was sent by private car to St. John Medical Center (“SJMC”) in Tulsa.
Id. at 56.
Upon admission to SJMC, petitioner reported arm and leg weakness that began with finger
numbness and grip strength issues on Saturday and progressed since. Pet Ex. 4 at 33. She was
worse today and could not walk. She denied incontinence, recent travel, injury, fever, or chills.
She reported taking Bactrim last Wednesday for an upper respiratory infection and feeling dizzy a
few days later. Id. The assessment was progressive weakness, first in the upper extremities then in
the lower extremities. She was unable to ambulate or bear weight. She had motor and sensory
deficits of unclear etiology in the upper and lower extremities. Id. at 34. An MRI of the cervical
spine with and without contrast showed “[p]resumed subtle artifact like hyperintense signal of the
mid cervical cord on the sagittal postcontrast series…Otherwise normal appearing spinal cord.”
Id. at 91-92.
Dr. Edgar provided a neurological consultation. Pet. Ex. 4 at 31. Petitioner reported mild
malaise on Friday, and numbness in her fingers and weakness in her hands and feet when she
awoke on Saturday that worsened throughout the day and was much worse on Sunday. She went
to the ER but was discharged. She presented to her PCP on Monday unable to stand and was taken
by car to SJMC. Her weakness had progressed since admission, and she was now unable to “get
her hands up to her face.” Id. She had mild lower back pain earlier that mostly went away. “She
does not having (sic) tingling or numbness right now,” headache, stiff neck, nausea, or vomiting.
Id. Dr. Edgar’s impression was “[p]robably Guillain-Barre syndrome, although given the lack of
auxiliary symptom/signs (hyponatremia, low back pain, acral paresthesias) I think viral
poliomyelitis needs to remain a consideration.” Id. He added that a CSF profile would probably
clarify the diagnosis, with albuminocytological dissociation meaning GBS, and lymphocytic
6

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 7 of 29
pleocytosis meaning viral infection, but it can take a week for CSF to become abnormal in some
GBS cases. Id. Dr. Edgar further noted that petitioner’s course was aggressive, and he anticipated
she would need intubation. He discussed with her an expected worsening over the next several
days, nadir within one to two weeks, a plateau at nadir for one to two weeks, then slow recovery
over a few months. He also discussed IVIG that would modulate her course, possibly minimizing
deficits at nadir, hastening onset of recovery, and likely speeding up recovery once it began. Id.
Petitioner’s CSF testing showed rare white blood cells but no epithelial cells or bacteria.
Pet. Ex. 4 at 40-41. Labs were normal. Id. at 47. On December 14, 2016, Dr. Edgar documented
that petitioner was slightly weaker than yesterday with normal CSF, “as it often is this early on,
but [the] goal was to rule out poliomyelitis which has been accomplished.” IVIG was started. Id.
at 52. Dr. Edgar’s assessment was “Guillain-Barre syndrome, more rapidly progressive than
average so I still expect need for intubation relatively soon, but it does seem that rapidity has
slowed in the past 24h.” Id.
The following day, Dr. Edgar noted that petitioner had regained “just a bit of proximal arm
movement compared to yesterday,” with no new issues or worsening problems. There was
moderate to severe upper and lower extremity weakness, areflexia, mild facial diplegia, mild to
moderate neck flexion weakness, and no dysarthria. Pet. Ex. 4 at 54. His impression was GBS. He
noted that she may already be approaching nadir, which would be “unusually quick but fortunate”
to avoid intubation. He expected a plateau over the next few days followed by slow improvement,
but she was not “out of the woods yet.” Id. IVIG was to continue, with inpatient rehabilitation
needed unless her convalescent phase was more rapid than typical. Id.
On December 16, 2016, Dr. Edgar noted that petitioner had a bit more strength and was
already at the plateau phase of GBS, with some remaining risk of worsening. Her last IVIG was
scheduled for the following day. Pet. Ex. 4 at 55.
Petitioner was noted to be more comfortable by December 17, 2016, with the strength in
her arms and legs improving daily. Pet. Ex. 4 at 59. She was able to grip weakly with her hands,
lift her arms 6-8 inches off the bed, and move her legs more. The diagnosis remained GBS,
improving slowly, with need for inpatient rehabilitation at discharge. Id.
By December 19, 2016, Dr. Edgar noted that petitioner was getting stronger every day. She
had no swallowing or breathing problems. She was regaining strength in her hands, legs, and feet.
The facial diplegia was gone. There was fair improvement in the upper extremities and good
improvement in the lower extremities. Pet. Ex. 4 at 62. Dr. Edgar expected her return to premorbid
functional baseline within three months, if not sooner, with weekly strides made over the next
several months. His impression remained GBS. Id.
Petitioner was willing to go to inpatient rehabilitation to “get back to her life.” Pet. Ex. 4
at 64. Her condition was documented at that time as GBS with functional quadriplegia and
improving muscle strength in the upper and lower extremities after five days of IVIG. Id. She was
discharged on December 21, 2016. Id. at 65. The discharge summary20 included a principal
20 The discharge summary was not contained in the record from SJMC but was found in the record from petitioner’s
PCP. See Pet. Ex. 2 at 80.
7

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 8 of 29
diagnosis of “[a]cute Guillain-Barre syndrome with respiratory failure.”21 Pet Ex. 2 at 80. The
record noted that petitioner “was found to have Guillain-Barre syndrome by EMG and was
transferred to the intensive care unit due to impending respiratory failure.”22 Pet. Ex. 2 at 80. Dr.
Edgar was consulted, the patient received a full course of IVIG, stabilized, and subsequently
improved. She was discharged to Kaiser Rehab. Id.
The admission record for Hillcrest Medical Center/Kaiser Medical Center (“Hillcrest”), an
in-patient rehabilitation facility, documented a 29-year-old mother of a 3-year-old living with her
fiancé and working full-time. Pet. Ex. 3 at 57. She had an onset of lower extremity weakness that
“kept basically ascending into her trunk and numbness in her fingers” that began on December 12,
2016. She was able to walk into the ER but unable to walk out. She was admitted to SJMC,
diagnosed with GBS, and received IVIG. Id. She had an upper respiratory infection and was taking
Bactrim three days prior to the onset of weakness. She was now stable and ready to start
rehabilitation. Id. at 51, 57. She denied vision changes, problems with coughing, chewing,
swallowing or choking, shortness of breath, or chest pain, but her appetite was poor. She reported
that initially she had some bladder control issues but had good control now. She denied numbness,
tingling, or pain. Id. at 58. Neuromuscular testing showed reduced strength in her upper and lower
body: areflexic in the right upper extremity with no deep tendon reflexes on the left; lower
extremity strength was fairly symmetrical with no reflexes found in either knee. Her clinical
presentation was noted to be consistent with her preadmission assessment. Id. She was to receive
physical therapy (“PT”) and occupational therapy (“OT”) at a minimum of three hours a day with
an estimated stay of ten to 14 days. Id. at 59.
Petitioner improved and within days needed only minimal to moderate assistance for bed
mobility, minimal assistance for transfers, supervision to minimal assistance for gait, and was
ambulating 50-100 feet using a rolling walker. Pet. Ex. 3 at 55. She requested to be discharged on
December 23, 2016, even though her goals were not met. She was determined to be home for
Christmas. A social worker was not present, so therapies needed to be set up after she was home.
She was examined and noted to have considerable OT deficits but was ambulatory and considered
safe for discharge. Pet. Ex. 3 at 6, 15-20, 52-53.
On December 29, 2016, petitioner presented to her PCP for follow up. She was improved,
gaining strength daily, and walking better but still “waddling.” PT and OT appointments were
scheduled for the following week. Pet. Ex. 2 at 109. Influenza vaccine was listed as an allergy in
the record. Id. The assessment was “Guillain Barre syndrome - recovering.” Id. at 110.
Petitioner received outpatient OT and PT at Jane Phillips Medical Center Physical
Medicine Center. Pet. Ex. 5 at 11. She had an OT evaluation on January 4, 2017 for a diagnosis of
GBS. She complained of decreased strength in both wrists and all fingers but was independent in
performing self-care activities. Id. at 32. She had difficulty with heavier lifting activities. She
denied pain, swelling, numbness, or tingling in either upper extremity with normal sensation. Her
active range of motion was normal, but the right upper extremity did lag slightly behind the left
due to weakness. Id. She had made “a fairly quick recovery” from GBS and was ambulating
21 Petitioner never suffered respiratory failure, although precautions were taken due to the rapid progression of her
condition.
22 There is no record of EMG testing being done during petitioner’s hospitalization.
8

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 9 of 29
without assistive devices. She had some upper extremity weakness, especially in the right shoulder
and both hands. Id. at 33. A plan and goals were set for OT twice per week for eight weeks. Id. at
33-34.
Petitioner had a PT evaluation on January 4, 2017. The history of her GBS was
documented. She reported that she never lost sensation but lost the function of her upper and lower
extremities. Pet. Ex. 5 at 45. The record notes that “[t]he patient is doing amazingly well
considering the short period of time since the onset. She just basically has general strength issues.”
Id. Her range of motion was within normal limits for all four extremities. She complained of her
lower back and legs aching at night, but pain was otherwise not an issue. Id. She was independent
without assistive devices and demonstrated good gait speed and heel-toe gait pattern but had some
slight imbalance laterally. She denied any sensation deficits. Id. at 46. She was noted to be
motivated and presented “following an onset of Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving a flu
shot.” She had made excellent progress to date and would benefit from strength and balance PT
two times per week for four to eight weeks. Id.
Petitioner presented to her PCP on January 19, 2017, requesting permission to return to
work. She was attending PT and OT and gaining strength and was much improved but still slightly
weak. She was able to return to work with no restrictions and directed to finish OT and PT as
planned. Pet. Ex. 2 at 125-26.
Petitioner completed eight OT visits between January 4, 2017 and February 2, 2017, with
good improvement in upper extremity strength. She still had weakness in her right hand, especially
with grip and pinch strengths. She reported little functional ability impairment and was tolerating
work and home activities. She was educated on home exercises and discharged from OT. Pet. Ex.
5 at 38.
Petitioner was discharged from PT on February 16, 2017, after five visits between January
6, 2017 and January 23, 2017. She had made good progress and returned to work. An official re-
evaluation could not be done because petitioner did not complete her PT sessions. She was
compliant with home exercises and had no pain. She was primarily working on high-level
strengthening. Pet. Ex. 5 at 44.
At a six-month follow-up examination on May 10, 2017, her history of GBS was
documented, in the “fall 2016 after flu vaccine; hospitalized and went through PT. Still having
intermittent weakness and fatigue”. Pet. Ex. 6 at 2. She worked on a computer, was having
difficulty typing, and becoming frustrated and depressed. She gained weight and lost interest in
things she was normally interested in. She reported trying to go out and walk, but her legs felt
heavy and at times dragged, her knees buckled, and she felt she had no strength. She had no
numbness, tingling, dizziness, or vision changes. Her gait was normal and motor and sensory were
intact. Id. Prozac was started. Her fatigue and weakness were noted as possible residuals from
GBS, but labs were ordered to rule out other causes. Id. at 3. Her vitamin D was still low, her
glucose was high, and her thyroid function was abnormal. Id. at 1.
Petitioner returned for a Prozac check on June 7, 2017, with improved mood but some
irritability. Pet. Ex. 6 at 5. The assessment was depression. Prozac was increased. Id. at 5-6.
9

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 10 of 29
Petitioner returned two weeks later with improved mood but one week of neck pain that
was worse after work. On examination, she had decreased range of motion of her neck, but no
numbness, tingling, or weakness in her arms. Pet. Ex. 6 at 8.
At a July 3, 2017 visit, petitioner reported persistent weakness, paresthesia, and muscle
fatigue, particularly in her hands when she types. Her fingers would not “work right” and it felt
like her knees gave out at times when walking. Pet. Ex. 6 at 11. Her depression had improved with
Prozac, but she was still gaining weight and not as active as she once was. She was bothered by
ongoing fatigue and weakness in her upper and lower extremities. Bloodwork was negative for
anemia or thyroid disease, but her vitamin D was still low despite taking ergocalciferol and getting
sun exposure. The assessment was depression improved on Prozac and weakness, fatigue, and
paresthesia likely the residual effects of GBS. She was referred to Dr. Edgar for follow up. Id. at
11-12.
Petitioner returned to Dr. Edgar on July 19, 2017, who noted her recovery from GBS with
some remaining but not disabling symptoms. Pet. Ex. 13 at 1. Dr. Edgar advised that it may take
another six months for the paresthesias to resolve and that it was not uncommon for GBS patients
to have some minor sensory complaints and intolerance with prolonged activity. Id. He wrote,
“[s]he believes this occurred as a complication of influenza vaccination, and that is possible
although not provable. This does not mean that she cannot have other vaccinations in the future,
but it would probably be prudent to avoid influenza vaccinations.” Id. The examination was normal
for motor, coordination, gait, and reflexes. Id.
In October 2017, petitioner presented to her PCP with Family and Medical Leave Act
(“FMLA”) paperwork. Pet. Ex. 8 at 1. She was struggling with weakness, paresthesia, and muscle
fatigue in her lower extremities, with weakness in her hands and fingers when typing. She felt her
legs would give out. She had ongoing fatigue. She had some bad days, but her depression was
overall controlled with Prozac. Id. PT was offered again to improve strength, but she declined
because she did not want to miss time from work. Yoga was suggested. Id. at 2.
Petitioner returned to the PCP on February 9, 2018, reporting one month of muscle and
nerve pain in her lower extremities with leg “jumping” affecting her sleep, weakness, and fatigue.
Pet. Ex. 8 at 4. Prozac was not working. She was more irritable, stressed, and unable to find joy in
things she normally did. She was assessed with depression, muscle fatigue that was possibly
residual from GBS, and restless leg syndrome. She was prescribed a trial of gabapentin and a dose
increase of her antidepressant. Id.
At a March 2018 follow up visit, petitioner reported no improvement in depression with
increased medication. Pet. Ex. 8 at 7. She still had numbness, tingling, and weakness in her lower
extremities at times, but not daily. She had GBS a year and a half ago with residual weakness but
had not seen the neurologist since July 2017. She was not taking the gabapentin because it made
her sleepy and did not help. Id. She had normal gait, strength, range of motion, and sensory to light
touch. Prozac was changed to Zoloft. She was referred to neurology. Id. at 7-8.
Petitioner had improvement with Zoloft, but still had increased irritability and feelings of
hopelessness some days. She was waiting for an appointment with Dr. Edgar. Pet. Ex. 8 at 10.
10

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 11 of 29
Petitioner continued to report lower leg numbness, tingling, and weakness on May 4, 2018.
Pet. Ex. 8 at 13. She was encouraged to do lower leg exercises and to consider PT if there was no
improvement. Id.
Petitioner presented to Dr. Lajara-Nanson, a neurologist, on May 24, 2018. He noted Dr.
Edgar’s diagnosis of GBS. Pet. Ex. 11 at 1. Petitioner reported bilateral lower extremity weakness,
general fatigue, and burning and tingling in her hands at night. She reported a flu shot two weeks
before the onset of numbness in her fingertips, followed by profound weakness the following day.
She was then hospitalized and “was paralyzed from the neck down but did not require intubation.”
She was treated with IVIG. Id. She reported no pain at that time but began to have hand cramping,
intermittent weakness, and burning pain in her hands and the lateral aspects of both thighs a few
weeks later. Id. After a neurological examination, Dr. Lajara-Nanson wrote:
I find no clear evidence that [petitioner] suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Spinal fluid studies at the time of diagnosis were normal and she has no motor
weakness, no distal sensory loss in the upper and lower limbs. In addition, her
reflexes are intact; these usually do not return after Guillain-Barre; certainly not
one that would lead to quadriplegia and persistent symptoms.
Pet. Ex. 11 at 3. Dr. Lajara-Nanson believed petitioner had meralgia paresthetica of the lower
limbs, not uncommon in obese individuals and a potential precursor to diabetes, but “a peculiar
residual for GBS.” Id. He prescribed Lyrica. He found that she had carpal tunnel syndrome in both
wrists and ordered splints and EMG/NCS testing of both the upper and lower extremities. “This
diagnosis makes more sense with her reported intermittent symptoms and daily typing.” Id.
Petitioner returned to her PCP on May 29, 2018. She reported that the neurologist
prescribed Lyrica and recommended EMG testing. Pet. Ex. 12 at 1. She had not picked up the
Lyrica yet. She recounted her visit to the neurologist and his belief that she did not have symptoms
of GBS but rather was overweight. Id. The PCP increased her Zoloft and recommended she pursue
EMG testing and take the Lyrica to see if it helped. She requested a different neurologist. Id. at 2.
No records of EMG testing were filed. The next medical record filed was from April 24,
2019, at which time petitioner reported having had a sleep study at Bailey Medical Center and
being diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea.23 Pet. Ex. 14 at 1. She was using a CPAP machine
with benefit and slightly increased energy. She continued to complain of weakness with numbness
and tingling in her upper and lower extremities, some days worse than others. She was taking
gabapentin with improvement on some days. She had not seen a neurologist in some time. She was
referred to a neurologist and directed to continue gabapentin and anxiety medication. Id. at 1-2.
On June 26, 2019, petitioner presented to the PCP after falling out of the shower that
morning when her knee “gave away.” Pet. Ex. 14 at 5. She now had right hip and leg pain she rated
as 7/10. The PCP cautioned her to take it slow due to her bilateral lower extremity weakness. Icing
and ibuprofen were recommended. Id. at 5-6.
23 It does not appear that petitioner filed the records from this sleep study.
11

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 12 of 29
Petitioner’s last medical visit filed was with her PCP in September 2019. Pet. Ex. 14 at 9.
She continued to suffer from bilateral upper and lower extremity weakness, numbness, and tingling
with flares that come and go, some days worse than others. She was taking gabapentin, which was
effective half of the time. She tried an increased dose, but it made her too tired. Id. She was
compliant with the CPAP and was taking Zoloft, which was working well. She was having
irregular, painful, heavy periods and had stopped taking Metformin due to stomach upset. Id.
3. Petitioner’s Affidavit
Petitioner affirmed receipt of a flu vaccine as required by her job. Pet. Ex. 7 at 1. Within
two weeks of the vaccination, she felt muscle fatigue and was tired all the time. Id.
Petitioner affirmed that while shopping on December 9, 2016, she noticed that she had lost
grip strength and could not control her hands or maneuver a shopping cart around the store. Pet.
Ex. 7 at 1. The next day, she started to lose the ability to stand unassisted. She presented to the ER
and was advised it could be GBS, but the doctor was not sure because it started with her hands and
stated, “it should wear off.” He suggested she contact her PCP the next morning if she had
concerns. By the end of the visit, she was unable to stand without assistance, and her husband had
to carry her into the house. Id.
Petitioner affirmed that by the next morning, she could not move anything other than her
head from side to side. Pet. Ex. 7 at 1. She went to the PCP, who called in another doctor for
consult, and was directed to go to SJMC in Tulsa immediately because they believed she may have
GBS. She was admitted to SJMC. Id.
Petitioner affirmed she was told she was being moved to the ICU because they believed
she had GBS, and “the next course this syndrome could take would be to take away my ability to
breathe unassisted.” Pet. Ex. 7 at 1. Once in the ICU, petitioner had a spinal tap to rule out multiple
sclerosis (“MS”). She was moved to the recovery floor after five days in ICU and discharged three
days later. An EMG was not done while she was at SJMC. Id. at 2.
According to petitioner, she was transferred to Kaiser Rehab Center for physical therapy
on December 21, 2016, and discharged to outpatient physical therapy closer to her home on
December 23, 2016. She completed occupational and physical therapy. Pet. Ex. 7 at 2.
Petitioner affirmed that she still experiences fatigue, muscle spasms, and loss of strength.
Her knees buckle with extended activity and her hands cramp or spasm, making typing difficult
and forcing her to stop what she is doing to do hand exercises from the occupational therapist. Pet.
Ex. 7 at 2.
Petitioner affirmed requiring treatment for depression due to the financial strain of the
overwhelming medical bills incurred. Her personal life has also been affected because she cannot
do the things that she used to do, such as playing on the floor with her son or picking him up. Pet.
Ex. 7 at 2.
12

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 13 of 29
III. The Experts
A. Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Ahmet Hoke
1. Qualifications
Dr. Hoke is a neuromuscular specialist whose practice focuses on peripheral nerve
disorders in an academic setting. He is a professor of neurology and neuroscience at Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine, Director of the Neuromuscular Division, Director of the
Neuromuscular Fellowship, and Co-Director of Neuromuscular Histopathology Laboratory. He is
on the medical staff of the neurology and pathology departments at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Additionally, he conducts translational laboratory research on the pathogenesis of peripheral
neuropathies and nerve regeneration. Pet. Ex. 15 at 1; see Pet. Ex. 16.
2. Dr. Hoke’s Opinion
Dr. Hoke detailed petitioner’s medical history. Pet. Ex. 15 at 1-8. Dr. Hoke’s opinion is
that petitioner had GBS and demonstrated ascending weakness, paresthesia, evolving areflexia,
and ataxia, all “classical features of GBS. Id. at 8.
Dr. Hoke added that while other diagnoses were considered, all were ruled out by testing
and CSF testing ruled out infectious etiology. An MRI of the spine and the lack of bowel and
bladder problems ruled out transverse myelitis (“TM”). Pet. Ex. 15 at 8. Dr. Hoke addressed the
“artifact” on the MRI, noting that petitioner had no upper motor neuron signs throughout her
hospitalization, which also argues against a TM diagnosis. Pet. Ex. 23 at 2; Pet. Ex. 2 at 58. While
Dr. Chaudhry raised various possible alternative diagnoses including CIDP, TM, and MS, the
required testing to advance those diagnoses was never performed. Pet. Ex. 23 at 2. Dr. Hoke
acknowledged that at petitioner had preserved reflexes at her initial presentation on December 11,
2016, but she had numbness and tingling and was areflexic when examined by a neurologist on
December 12, 2016. Id.; Pet. Ex. 2 at 55-56. This rapid loss of reflexes fits a presentation of GBS,
not TM or MS. Pet. Ex. 23 at 2. Further, if she had CIDP, she would not have had a normal
examination with intact reflexes 18 months later. Id.; Pet. Ex. 11.
According to Dr. Hoke, all GBS patients do not present with the same symptoms, and the
fact that an EMG was not performed does not mean petitioner did not have GBS: “[i]t would have
been nice to have it as a confirmatory test but her treating physicians felt that the evidence was
sufficient to make a diagnosis of GBS after ruling out other alternative diagnoses.” Pet. Ex. 23 at
1-2.
Dr. Hoke discussed petitioner’s upper respiratory symptoms and sinus congestion “at some
point prior to the onset of her GBS”, noting that none of her medical providers attributed her GBS
to an infectious cause and no record specified the existence of infection. Pet. Ex. 22 at 1; Pet. Ex.
23 at 1. References to respiratory symptoms in the record were simply comments associated with
temporal events preceding the onset of weakness. Pet. Ex. 23 at 1. Further, the exclusionary criteria
for a Table GBS injury “makes no reference to ill-defined generalized infectious processes” such
as a sinus infection, congestion, or upper respiratory infection. Pet. Ex. 22 at 2.
13

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 14 of 29
Dr. Hoke addressed Dr. Lajara-Nanson’s office visit 18 months after petitioner’s GBS
diagnosis, in which he assessed her with carpal tunnel syndrome and meralgia paresthetica. Dr.
Hoke acknowledges that Dr. Lajara-Nanson’s assessment may have been accurate on the day he
examined her, but it does not detract from her GBS diagnosis a year and a half prior. He noted that
“[c]arpal tunnel syndrome is a very common condition and meralgia paresthetica is not uncommon
in overweight individuals.” Pet. Ex. 15 at 7-8.
Further, Dr. Hoke relied on Garssen, Rekand, Forsberg, and Merkies & Keiseier to show
that GBS patients can have persistent fatigue, muscle weakness, and paresthesia even after full
recovery on nerve conduction studies. The literature “clearly demonstrate[s] the incorrect
rationale” of Dr. Lajara-Nanson that petitioner did not suffer from GBS because she had good
recovery of reflexes and strength. Pet. Ex. 15 at 8; Pet. Ex. 1824; Pet. Ex. 2125; Pet. Ex. 2026; Pet.
Ex. 1727; Pet. Ex. 19.28
Dr. Hoke opined that, “[petitioner] had classical features of GBS…and her relatively rapid
recovery from quadriparesis was partly due to her age and rapid initiation of IVIG treatment before
she reached the nadir of her illness.” Pet. Ex. 15 at 9. Residual fatigue is not uncommon in GBS
patients who have full recovery. Id. Dr. Hoke concluded that petitioner suffered GBS within 3-42
days of her flu vaccine. Id.
B. Respondent’s Expert, Dr. Vinay Chaudhry
1. Qualifications
Dr. Chaudhry is a neurologist who specializes in neuromuscular diseases, including the
management of peripheral neuropathies. He is also an expert in electrodiagnostic studies as they
relate to neuromuscular diseases. Resp. Ex. A at 1. Dr. Chaudhry is board certified in neurology,
neuromuscular diseases, electrodiagnostic medicine, and clinical neurophysiology. He has an
active clinical practice and evaluates over 2000 patients a year, mostly related to peripheral nerve
disease. He is involved in clinical research, reviews articles for over 35 different journals, and has
been on the editorial board of three journals. He has directly mentored over 50 fellows and several
hundred medical students and neurology residents. He is considered an expert in the evaluation
and treatment of patients with peripheral neuropathies, including GBS and CIDP. Resp. Ex. A at
1; Resp. Ex. B.
2. Opinion
Dr. Chaudhry summarized petitioner’s medical history. Resp. Ex. A at 2-8. He described
GBS as an acquired disease of the peripheral nervous system characterized by rapidly progressing
ascending paralysis with parethesias. Resp. Ex. A at 8. Areflexia and involvement of the cranial
24 Garssen et al., supra note 18.
25 Garssen et al., supra note 4.
26 Rekand et al., supra note 6.
27 Forsberg et al., supra note 3.
28 Merkies & Kieseier, supra note 19.
14

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 15 of 29
nerves, diaphragm, and autonomic nervous system are common. Id. Nerve conduction studies
generally show demyelinating electrophysiology and CSF evaluation will show
albuminocytological dissociation. GBS is a monophasic illness with a good prognosis for recovery,
and both IVIG and plasma exchange are effective treatments. Id.
Dr. Chaudhry agreed that petitioner had a rapid onset of limb weakness and absent reflexes
consistent with GBS, but her “other features” raised doubt about the diagnosis. Resp. Ex. A at 8.
Dr. Chaudhry elaborated on these “other features”, including weakness that started in the upper
extremities rather than in an ascending pattern; marked asymmetry in abduction between the right
and left shoulder and right and left hip; normal sensory examination despite the presence of
paresthesias; and lack of bladder control. Id. Dr. Chaudhry added that her subsequent course was
also atypical for GBS, with continuing symptoms and intermittent flares of paresthesias and
weakness up to three years after her acute symptoms. He wrote that GBS is not associated with
relapses and worsening weakness, and these fluctuations raise the possibility of acute onset CIDP.
Id. at 9. Still further, Dr. Chaudhry added that petitioner did not have albuminocytological
dissociation on CSF, which is typical for GBS. EMG and nerve conduction studies were not done
during the acute phase of her illness or in follow-up, despite petitioner’s persistent symptoms of
paresthesias and weakness. The Brighton criteria requires EMG testing to diagnose GBS. Resp.
Ex. A at 9; Resp. Ex. C at 3.
Dr. Chaudhry contends that petitioner’s treating physicians failed to explore alternative
diagnoses. Resp. Ex. A at 9. They failed to rule out TM in light of her complaint of bladder issues
and MRI results showing subtle artifact-like hyperintense signal in the mid-cervical cord. Repeat
imaging was not done. Id. at 12; Pet. Ex. 2 at 112. Her asymmetry on right and left shoulder
abduction was suggestive of C5 myeloradiculopathy. Resp. Ex. A at 12. An MRI of the brain was
not done to rule out lesions on the brain like those on the C-spine, since TM can be the initial event
that correlates with MS. Blood tests such as serum anti-aquaporin-4-IgG autoantibodies and anti-
myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibodies were not performed and may have clarified her
condition. Id.; Resp. Ex. C at 3. Petitioner’s continuing intermittent weakness and giving way of
her knees may have been a feature of a spinal cord lesion with depressed reflexes during the acute
stage of spinal cord disease. Id.
Dr. Chaudhry argues that petitioner has CIDP due to the fluctuation of her symptoms up to
three years later. Resp. Ex. A at 10; Pet. Ex. 8 at 13; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 6.29 Like petitioner, CIDP
patients do not require a ventilator. Like petitioner, CIDP patients have significantly less cranial
nerve dysfunction. Resp. Ex. A at 10; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 7.30 Like petitioner, one-third of CIDP
patients have a relapsing-remitting course, more common in younger patients. Resp. Ex. A at 10;
Resp. Ex. A, Tab 9.31 Dr. Chaudhry argues that nerve conduction studies, which were not done
here, were important to confirm a diagnosis of CIDP. Resp. Ex. A at 10. Fatigue is a common
29 Liselotte Ruts et al., Distinguishing acute-onset CIDP from Guillain-Barré syndrome with treatment related
fluctuations, 65 NEUROLOGY 138 (2005), filed as “Resp. Ex. A, Tab 6.”
30 L. Ruts et al., Distinguishing acute-onset CIDP from fluctuating Guillain-Barré syndrome: A prospective study, 74
NEUROLOGY 1680 (2010), filed as “Resp. Ex. A, Tab 7.”
31 Richard A. Lewis, Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: Etiology, clinical features, and diagnosis,
UPTODATE (Aug. 29, 2018), https://uptodate.com, filed as “Resp. Ex. A, Tab 9.”
15

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 16 of 29
symptom of CIDP and can be a presenting feature. Petitioner experienced fatigue that predated the
onset of her acute weakness. Id.
According to Dr. Chaudhry, Dr. Hoke failed to address the symptoms that raised doubts
about petitioner’s GBS diagnosis and failed to discuss the unclear etiology of her condition and
the other diagnoses raised by her treating physicians including paresthesias, TM, myelopathy, and
proximal myopathy. Resp. Ex. C at 1-2, 5; Pet. Ex. 2 at 61-66. Dr. Chaudhry referred to Dr. Lajara-
Nanson’s assessment to support his opinion that petitioner did not have GBS because her CSF
testing was normal, she did not have motor weakness or distal sensory loss in the upper and lower
limbs, and her reflexes were intact, which does not occur with GBS. Resp. Ex. C at 2; Pet. Ex. 11
at 3.
Dr. Chaudhry raised additional possible diagnoses based on petitioner’s medical history,
including idiopathic intracranial hypertension to explain her headaches; hormonal irregularities to
explain her hair loss, tiredness, and unexplained weight gain; and myopathies associated with
cardiac arrhythmias to explain her episodes of syncope in 2016 that were thought to be vasovagal.
Resp. Ex. A at 10. Finally, Dr. Chaudhry added that petitioner has been diagnosed with obstructive
sleep apnea which is usually associated with fatigue, tiredness, and headaches. Id. at 11.
Dr. Chaudhry found it difficult to address causation because petitioner’s diagnosis was
uncertain and EMG testing was never done. Resp. Ex. A at 11. Further, GBS is a post-infectious
immune disorder, with two thirds of patients having diarrhea or an upper respiratory illness several
weeks before the onset of symptoms. Id.; see Resp. Ex. A, Tab 132; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 233; Resp.
Ex. A, Tab 3.34 GBS has been associated with C. jejuni infection in 25-50% of GBS patients,
cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, influenza A virus, mycoplasma pneumoniae, Haemophilus
influenza, hepatitis E, Zika, and chikungunya. GBS has also been reported following vaccination
for rabies and rabies and influenza A. Resp. Ex. A at 11; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 135 at 2.
According to Dr. Chaudhry, petitioner had three possible infections prior to onset of
weakness and paresthesias. The first was an upper respiratory infection on October 31, 2016, five
to six weeks prior to onset, with sore throat, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness. Resp. Ex. A at
11; Pet. Ex. 2 at 48. The second was another upper respiratory infection on December 7, 2016,
three days prior to onset, with head and chest congestion, earaches, nasal drainage, and cough.
Resp. Ex. A at 11; Pet. Ex. 2 at 51. Third, bloodwork done on December 13, 2016 was positive for
EBVG and EBNUCL AB, though Dr. Chaudhry conceded that these findings do not suggest acute
infection, but noted that Epstein-Barr Virus is a known antecedent to GBS. Resp. Ex. A at 11;
Resp. Ex. C at 4; Pet. Ex. 2 at 48, 51, 74. In Dr. Chaudhry’s opinion, if petitioner had GBS, it was
caused by the immediate antecedent upper respiratory infection. He added that Dr. Hoke ignored
these infections. Resp. Ex. A at 11-13; Pet. Ex. 2 at 61-66, 68, 82-83, 88-93, 111; Pet. Ex. 4 at 47.
Dr. Chaudhry contends that the failure to identify a specific infection does not mean an infection
was not the cause of her GBS. Resp. Ex. C at 3.
32 Willison et al., supra note 5.
33 Vriesendorp, supra note 8.
34 Fokke et al., supra note 13.
35 Willison et al., supra note 5.
16

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 17 of 29
Succinctly, Dr. Chaudhry opines that petitioner’s GBS diagnosis is unclear because she
had ongoing intermittent paresthesias and weakness after the acute episode, her MRI was
abnormal, her CSF testing was normal, no EMG was performed to confirm the diagnosis, her
weakness started in her upper body and was not ascending, and she did not have an ataxic gait.
Resp. Ex. A at 12. Other possible diagnoses including TM, MS, early myelopathy, proximal
myopathy, meralgia paresthetica, carpal tunnel syndrome, and restless leg syndrome were raised
by her treating physicians, and Dr. Lajara-Nanson also questioned the GBS diagnosis in May 2018.
Id. Therefore, it is uncertain that petitioner had GBS, and even assuming that she did, the evidence
demonstrates that preceding infections may have been the antecedent trigger. The flu vaccine was
not likely the cause of her symptoms. Id. at 14.
IV. Discussion
A. Standard for Adjudication
The Vaccine Act provides two avenues for petitioners to receive compensation. First, a
petitioner may demonstrate a “Table” injury—i.e., an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table
that occurred within the provided time period. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i). “In such a case,
causation is presumed.” Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 440 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed.
Cir. 2006); see § 13(a)(1)(B). Second, where the alleged injury is not listed on the Vaccine Injury
Table, a petitioner may demonstrate an “off-Table” injury, which requires that the petitioner
“prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccine at issue caused the injury.” Capizzano,
440 F.3d at 1320; see § 11(c)(1)(C)(ii). A petitioner need not show that the vaccination was the
sole cause, or even the predominant cause, of the alleged injury; showing that the vaccination was
a “substantial factor” and a “but for” cause of the injury is sufficient for recovery. Pafford v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 451 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Shyface v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 165 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioners are not required “to eliminate
alternative causes as part of establishing [their] prima facie case.” Doe v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 601 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see Walther v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
485 F.3d 1146, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that a “petitioner does not bear the burden of
eliminating alternative independent potential causes”). Once a petitioner has proven causation by
preponderant evidence, “the burden then shifts to the respondent to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that the injury is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine.”
Deribeaux ex rel. Deribeaux v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 717 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-13(a)(1)(B)).
Petitioner alleged only a Table claim for GBS following the flu vaccine. Therefore, the
Althen requirements need not be addressed.
In enacting the Vaccine Act that included the Vaccine Injury Table, Congress turned the
maxim “post hoc ergo propter hoc” on its head. Shalala v. Whitecotton, 514 U.S. 268, 270 (1995).
When a petitioner establishes that she “sustained . . . any illness . . . set forth in the Vaccine Injury
Table in association with [a] vaccine . . . and the first symptom . . . of the onset . . . occurred within
the time period after the vaccine administration set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table,” the
petitioner gains a rebuttable presumption that the vaccination caused the injury. Whitecotton, 514
U.S. 270-71; 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–11(c)(1)(C)(i). The Secretary may rebut this prima facie showing
17

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 18 of 29
by proving that the illness was in fact caused by “factors unrelated to the administration of the
vaccine.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–13(a)(1)(B); accord Whitecotton, 514 U.S. at 270-71.
In trying to establish that a factor unrelated to the vaccination caused the injury, the
Secretary's burden is a “preponderance of the evidence.” Walther v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 485 F.3d 1146, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A “preponderance of the evidence” is not the same
as scientific certainty. Bunting v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir.
1991).
In the present case, for petitioner to qualify for a Vaccine Injury Table presumption of
causation, a preponderance of the evidence must establish that the initial symptom or manifestation
of onset of her GBS occurred not less than three days and not more than 42 days after the
vaccination. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(a). Petitioner must also establish that she satisfies the criteria for a
Table GBS injury in the Act’s qualifications and aids to interpretation (“QAI”), set forth at 42
C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15). The QAI specify that:
GBS is an acute monophasic peripheral neuropathy that encompasses a spectrum
of four clinicopathological subtypes . . . the interval between the first appearance
of symptoms and the nadir of weakness is between 12 hours and 28 days. This is
followed in all subtypes by a clinical plateau with stabilization at the nadir of
symptoms, or subsequent improvement without significant relapse. Treatment
related fluctuations in all subtypes of GBS can occur within 9 weeks of GBS
symptom onset and recurrence of symptoms after this time-frame would not be
consistent with GBS.
42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(i).
Moreover, to “qualify as any subtype of GBS, there must not be a more likely alternative
diagnosis for the weakness.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(v). In particular, the “[e]xclusionary criteria
for the diagnosis of all subtypes of GBS include the ultimate diagnosis of any of the [listed]
conditions,” and the list is not exhaustive. See 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(vi); see also 42 U.S.C. §
300aa-13(a)(1). The Act also requires petitioner to have “suffered the residual effects or
complications of such illness, disability, injury, or condition for more than 6 months after the
administration of the vaccine.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(D)(i).
Although this decision discusses some but not all the literature in detail, I have reviewed
and considered all the medical records and literature submitted in this matter. See Moriarty ex rel.
Moriarty v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 844 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We generally
presume that a special master considered the relevant record evidence even though he does not
explicitly reference such evidence in his decision.”); Simanski v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
115 Fed. Cl. 407, 436 (2014) (“a Special Master is ‘not required to discuss every piece of evidence
or testimony in her decision.’” (citation omitted)), aff’d, 601 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
18

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 19 of 29
B. Analysis
After review of the record, including the medical records, expert reports, literature, and the
parties’ briefs, and in accordance with the applicable legal standards, I find that petitioner’s
diagnosis is GBS, and she has proven by preponderant evidence that she meets the Table criteria
for GBS following a flu vaccination. Accordingly, I find petitioner entitled to compensation based
on the following.
1. Treating Physicians Diagnosed Petitioner with and Treated Her for GBS
Petitioner was healthy when she received the influenza vaccine on November 8, 2016. Pet.
Ex. 1 at 1; Pet. Ex. 2 at 50.
On December 11, 2016, she presented to the ER with two days of gradual onset of
weakness, fatigue, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and inability to open her hands. Pet. Ex. 5
at 95. Examination was normal but patellar and Achilles reflexes were 2/5. Id. at 97. She reportedly
grew weaker during her ER visit with difficulty urinating. Id. at 118. She was administered fluids
and discharged home to follow up with her PCP. Id. at 107.
The following day, petitioner presented to her PCP with generalized weakness in her upper
and lower extremities. She reported dizziness, numbness, and tingling in her hands and feet on
Friday, and weakness in her arms and legs when she woke on Saturday which worsened yesterday.
She was unable to walk and went to the ER. Her PCP noted weakness on examination but no
sensory deficits. Pet. Ex. 2 at 55; Pet. Ex. 5 at 97. The impression was “questionable GBS”, and
she was sent to the hospital by private vehicle. Pet. Ex. 2 at 55-56.
Upon admission to the hospital, a detailed history of the onset of her symptoms was taken.
Pet. Ex. 4 at 33. She denied bladder or bowel incontinence, reported taking Bactrim for a URI last
Wednesday, and was unable to bear weight or ambulate. Her weakness had progressed, and she
now had sensory deficits in both her upper and lower extremities on examination. Id. at 33-34. An
MRI showed “[p]resumed subtle artifact like hyperintense signal of the mid cervical cord on the
sagittal postcontrast series…Otherwise normal appearing spinal cord.” Id. at 91-92.
Dr. Edgar conducted a neurological examination on December 13, 2016, with the
impression being “[p]robably” GBS. He ordered a lumbar puncture to rule out viral infection. Pet.
Ex. 4 at 31, 40-41. On the same day, Dr. Calvert noted progressive weakness with an assessment
of “apparent guillan (sic) barre syndrome”. Id. at 47. He also noted petitioner “has had a recent
upper respiratory infection treated with bactrim (for a couple days), and the flu shot 3 weeks ago.”
Id. Dr. Calvert transferred petitioner to the ICU and IVIG was initiated. Id.
Dr. Edgar noted petitioner to be slightly weaker with breath support mildly reduced, and
some neck flexion weakness on December 14, 2016. He documented that the CSF testing was
normal “as it often is this early on, but goal was to rule out poliomyelitis which has been
accomplished.” Pet. Ex. 4 at 52. His diagnosis was “Guillain-Barre syndrome, more rapidly
progressive than average so I still expect need for intubation relatively soon, but it does seem that
rapidity has slowed in the past 24h”. Id. On December 15, 2016, Dr. Edgar noted that he felt she
19

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 20 of 29
was reaching nadir more quickly than usual which was fortunate if she could avoid intubation, but
she was not “out of the woods.” Id. at 54. Throughout her stay, Dr. Edgar’s diagnosis remained
GBS. Pet. Ex. 4 at 55, 60, 62.
Dr. Lawler also assessed petitioner with “Guillan (sic) Barre Syndrome – ivig 12/13-12/17”
on December 17, 2016, and noted she was improving slowly. Pet. Ex. 4 at 59-60. On December
19, 2016, following completion of IVIG treatment, Dr. Lawler documented, “Guillan (sic) barre
syndrome – with functional quadriplegia…” Id. at 63.
On December 20, 2016, Dr. Wenger documented petitioner as having GBS with improving
muscle strength in the upper and lower extremities bilaterally following IVIG. Pet. Ex. 4 at 64-65.
Petitioner was discharged to inpatient rehabilitation with a diagnosis of GBS. Pet. Ex. 2 at 80.
Petitioner’s subsequent visits all document a diagnosis of GBS. Pet. Ex. 2 at 110, 118, 121,
125; Pet. Ex. 6 at 2, 11; Pet. Ex. 5 at 11, 32, 45; Pet. Ex. 13. The only exception was Dr. Lajara-
Nanson, who saw petitioner 18 months after her GBS diagnosis. See Pet. Ex. 11. Dr. Lajara-
Nanson disagreed with Dr. Edgar’s diagnosis of GBS, and based on his own examination, assessed
petitioner’s ongoing lower leg complaints as meralgia paresthetica due to her weight and her upper
extremity complaints as carpal tunnel syndrome from typing. He suggested EMG/NCS studies and
Lyrica. Pet. Ex. 11 at 3.
A host of potential diagnoses were considered at the time of petitioner’s admission to the
hospital, including paresthesias, GBS, TM, myelopathy, and proximal myopathy. See Pet. Ex. 2 at
66. However, petitioner’s treating physicians all agreed her diagnosis was GBS after CSF testing
ruled out an infectious cause and an MRI found a “[p]resumed subtle artifact like hyperintense
signal of the mid cervical cord on the sagittal postcontrast series…Otherwise normal appearing
spinal cord.” Pet. Ex. 4 at 91-92. Petitioner was treated with IVIG for GBS. None of her physicians
ordered additional testing for or diagnosed her with anything but GBS. In the three years following
her diagnosis, petitioner suffered from residual symptoms attributed to her GBS. See Pet. Ex. 6 at
2, 11-12; Pet. Ex. 8 at 1-2, 4; Pet. Ex. 13 at 1.
The opinions of and diagnosis made by petitioner’s treating physicians are entitled to great
weight. Capizzano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 440 F. 3d. 1317, 1320, 1325-26 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). After review of the medical records and the opinions of petitioner’s treating physicians,
I find that petitioner’s diagnosis was GBS.
2. Petitioner’s Onset was Between 3 and 42 days After Vaccination
For a flu GBS claim to be on-Table, the first manifestation must be between 3 and 42 days
after receipt of vaccination. 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a)(XIV)(D). It is undisputed that petitioner received
the subject vaccination on November 8, 2016, and presented to the hospital on December 11, 2016
with the onset of weakness a day earlier, placing petitioner’s onset within the 3 to 42 days period.
Thus, I find that onset fell within the Table definition for GBS and flu vaccine.
20

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 21 of 29
3. Petitioner Satisfies the Qualification and Aids to Interpretation for a Table
GBS Claim following Flu Vaccination
A Table claim for GBS requires the following:
A. Bilateral flaccid limb weakness and decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes in
weak limbs;
B. A monophasic illness pattern;
C. An interval between onset and nadir of weakness between 12 hours and 28 days;
D. Subsequent clinical plateau (the clinical plateau leads to either stabilization at the
nadir of symptoms, or subsequent improvement without subsequent relapse;
however, death may occur without a clinical plateau); and,
E. The absence of an identified more likely alternative diagnosis.
42 C.F.R. §100.3(c)(15)(ii).
Supportive but not required evidence for a GBS diagnosis includes EMG findings
consistent with GBS or an elevation of CSF protein with a total CSF white blood cell count below
50 cells per microliter. However, both CSF and EMG testing are frequently normal in the first
week of illness in otherwise typical cases of GBS. 42 C.F.R. §100.3(c)(15)(iv).
Exclusionary criteria for the diagnosis of GBS include the ultimate diagnosis of conditions
including CIDP, MS, and more. 42 C.F.R. §100.3(c)(15)(vi).
Petitioner’s medical records, the opinions of her treating physicians, and the opinion and
supportive evidence outlined by Dr. Hoke provide persuasive evidence that petitioner has met
these criteria.
i. Bilateral Flaccid Limb Weakness and Decreased or Absent Deep
Tendon Reflexes in Weak Limbs
Petitioner’s medical records reveal that while petitioner’s development of symptoms was
initially atypical, she ultimately suffered from motor and sensory deficits of her upper and lower
extremities, areflexia, mild to moderate neck flexion weakness, and mild facial diplegia, satisfying
the criteria for bilateral flaccid limb weakness and decreased or absent deep tendon reflexes in the
weak limbs. Pet. Ex. 5 at 97; Pet. Ex. 2 at 55-56; Pet. Ex. 4 at 34, 52, 54.
When petitioner first presented on December 11, 2016, there were no focal neurological
deficits, her cranial nerves were intact, and there were normal motor and sensory findings
bilaterally, but her patellar and Achilles reflexes were 2/5. Pet. Ex. 5 at 97. The next day, she
presented with worsening symptoms, including weakness and numbness and tingling in her hands
and feet, but no sensory involvement. There was no facial weakness, dizziness, vertigo, blurred
vision, speech problems, incontinence, or pain. Pet. Ex. 2 at 55-56. However, she was sent directly
to the hospital and upon arrival had motor and sensory deficits in the upper and lower extremities
with areflexia and mild facial diplegia in the days that followed. Pet. Ex. 2 at 55-56; Pet. Ex. 4 at
33-34, 52, 54.
21

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 22 of 29
Dr. Hoke pointed out that although petitioner had preserved reflexes on December 11,
2016, she had numbness and tingling on December 12 and was areflexic when examined by Dr.
Edgar. Pet. Ex. 15 at 2-3; Pet. Ex. 2 at 55, 59-60. Dr. Hoke opined that this rapid loss of reflexes
fits a “typical” pattern of GBS. Pet. Ex. 23 at 2.
Dr. Chaudhry agreed that petitioner had a rapid onset of limb weakness and absent reflexes
consistent with GBS but argued that her other features raised doubt about the diagnosis. Resp. Ex.
A at 8.
While petitioner’s initial presentation may have been unusual, her symptoms progressed
quickly to motor and sensory deficits in the upper and lower extremities, with areflexia among
other deficits. Pet. Ex. 5 at 95, 97; Pet. Ex. 2 at 55-56; Pet. Ex. 4 at 33-34, 52, 54.
Petitioner’s medical records show that she suffered from weakness, paresthesia, numbness
and tingling of the upper and lower extremities, inability to bear weight, and areflexia leading to a
diagnosis of GBS, thus meeting the criteria for bilateral flaccid limb weakness and decreased or
absent deep tendon reflexes in the weak limbs. I find that petitioner has satisfied this requirement.
ii. A Monophasic Illness Pattern
Petitioner was admitted to the hospital on December 12, 2016 with rapidly progressing
GBS. IVIG was started to treat GBS following an MRI and lumbar puncture. Pet. Ex. 4 at 31. On
December 15, 2016, Dr. Edgar noted that petitioner had regained “just a bit of proximal arm
movement compared with yesterday” with no new issues or worsening problems. Pet. Ex. 4 at 54.
Dr. Edgar noted moderate to severe upper and lower extremity weakness, areflexia, mild facial
diplegia, and mild to moderate neck flexion weakness. He felt she may already be reaching nadir,
which would be “unusually quick but fortunate.” Further, he expected a plateau over the next few
days followed by slow improvement. Id. The next day, Dr. Edgar noted that petitioner was getting
stronger daily. Id. at 59. By December 19, 2016, Dr. Edgar noted fair improvement in her upper
extremities and good improvement in her lower extremities. Id. at 62. Upon discharge from the
hospital to a rehabilitation facility on December 21, 2016, petitioner was noted to have
improvement in muscle strength in the upper and lower extremities after five days of IVIG and
had stabilized. Id. at 64-65; Pet. Ex. 2 at 80.
Petitioner made further improvement as an inpatient at a rehabilitation facility. Pet. Ex. 3
at 6, 15-20, 52-53, 188. After her discharge from rehabilitation, petitioner continued to suffer from
weakness that was “intermittent”, “residual”, “ongoing”, and considered a residual symptom of
GBS by her treating physicians. Pet. Ex. 6 at 2-3, 11-12; Pet. Ex. 8 at 1, 7, 10, 13; Pet. Ex. 14 at 1,
5-6, 9-10. On March 5, 2018, her PCP wrote that it had been “1.5 years with residual weakness”
after her GBS diagnosis. Pet. Ex. 8 at 7.
Dr. Hoke highlighted one of Dr. Edgar’s records, which explained that it is “common for
a GBS patient to end up with some relatively minor sensory complaints and intolerance of
prolonged activity.” Pet. Ex. 15 at 6-7 (citing Pet. Ex. 13). Dr. Hoke filed literature in support of
this opinion, showing that persistent symptoms of fatigue, muscle weakness, and paresthesia are
22

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 23 of 29
not uncommon amongst individuals who have “fully” recovered from GBS. Pet. Ex. 15 at 8; Pet
Ex. 1736; Pet. Ex. 1837; Pet. Ex. 1938; Pet. Ex. 2039; Pet. Ex. 21.40
Dr. Chaudhry disagrees that petitioner had a monophasic illness and contends that
petitioner’s “continual symptoms with intermittent flares” are symptoms of CIDP, not GBS. Resp.
Ex. A at 9; see Pet. Ex. 6 at 2-3, 11-12; Pet. Ex. 8 at 1, 7, 10; Pet. Ex. 14 at 1, 5-6, 9-10.
Based on the record, I find that petitioner’s illness stabilized after five days of IVIG
treatment as documented by Dr. Edgar. Pet. Ex. 4 at 31, 55. Petitioner then continued to improve
with therapy and returned to her daily activities but continued to suffer from ongoing residual
symptoms. There is no reference in the medical records to any significant deterioration in
symptoms or concerns that petitioner experienced any relapses. She was consistently noted to have
residual complaints associated with her GBS. I therefore find that petitioner’s illness was
monophasic, and she has met this requirement.
iii. An Interval Between Onset and Nadir of Weakness Between 12
Hours and 28 Days
There is no dispute about the onset of petitioner’s symptoms. Petitioner presented to the
ER on December 11, 2016, with two days of symptoms which continued to develop and worsen
until she was admitted to the hospital and quickly diagnosed GBS, “more rapidly progressive than
average”. IVIG was initiated with improvement noted. Pet. Ex. 4 at 45-46, 52-54. By December
15, 2016, Dr. Edgar noted that petitioner had regained “just a bit of proximal arm movement
compared with yesterday” with no new issues or worsening problems. Id. at 54. Despite Dr. Edgar
documenting moderate to severe upper and lower extremity weakness, areflexia, mild facial
diplegia, and mild to moderate neck flexion weakness, he also noted that petitioner may already
be reaching nadir, which would be “unusually quick but fortunate.” Further, he expected a plateau
over the next few days followed by slow improvement. Id. By December 16, 2016, Dr. Edgar noted
that petitioner had a bit more strength and was already at the plateau phase of GBS. Her last IVIG
treatment was scheduled for the following day. Id. at 55.
The assessment of petitioner’s treating neurologist, Dr. Edgar, was that she reached nadir
during the five-day course of IVIG treatment, within the 12 hours and 28-day requirement.
Therefore, petitioner has satisfied this requirement.
iv. Subsequent Clinical Plateau Leading to Stabilization at the Nadir
of Symptoms or Subsequent Improvement Without Significant
Relapse
As detailed above, petitioner reached nadir within the five-day period during which she
was receiving IVIG treatment. She was then discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation center until
36 Forsberg et al., supra note 3.
37 Garssen et al., supra note 18.
38 Merkies & Kieseier, supra note 19.
39 Rekand et al., supra note 6.
40 Garssen et al., supra note 4.
23

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 24 of 29
just before Christmas, when she was discharged home. On December 29, 2016, petitioner
presented to her PCP, reporting much improvement, and walking better though still “waddling.”
Pet. Ex. 2 at 109. On January 4, 2017, she was noted to have made “a fairly quick recovery” and
was ambulating without assistive devices. She continued to exhibit some upper extremity
weakness, especially in the right shoulder and both hands. Pet. Ex. 5 at 33. At a physical therapy
evaluation on the same date, petitioner was noted as “doing amazingly well considering the short
period of time since the onset. She just basically has general strength issues.” Id. at 45.
At her visit to her PCP on January 19, 2017, petitioner was improved but still slightly weak.
She was able to return to work with no restrictions but needed to complete her therapies. Pet. Ex.
2 at 125-26. Petitioner completed her OT and PT between January 4, 2017 and February 2, 2017,
with good improvement in her upper extremity strength, but she still had weakness in her right
hand especially with grip and pinch strengths. She reported little functional ability impairment and
had returned to work with good endurance tolerating work and home activities. Pet. Ex. 5 at 38-
39, 44.
Since that time, petitioner has remained stable with continued complaints of ongoing
weakness in her upper and lower extremities and fatigue considered by her treating physicians to
be residual symptoms of her GBS. Pet. Ex. 6 at 2-3, 11-12; Pet. Ex. 13; Pet. Ex. 8 at 1-2, 4, 7, 13;
Pet. Ex. 14 at 9-10.
Dr. Chaudhry referred to petitioner’s ongoing symptoms as flares indicative of CIDP rather
than GBS. Resp. Ex. A at 10. Dr. Hoke maintained that these symptoms were consistent with
residual complaints following GBS even in those who have fully recovered, and petitioner’s full
recovery with intact reflexes would be inconsistent with CIDP. Pet. Ex. 15 at 8; Pet. Ex. 23 at 2.
I find that petitioner has met this criterion as well. Petitioner reached nadir and plateaued
following five days of IVIG treatment. She improved but continued to have ongoing residual
symptoms, none of which were considered by her treating physicians to be relapses or
deteriorations, and none required further IVIG treatment. Pet. Ex. 6 at 3, 11-12; Pet. Ex. 13; Pet.
Ex. 14 at 5-6. Petitioner has satisfied this requirement.
v. The Absence of an Identified More Likely Diagnosis
Respondent’s expert opines that there are a host of alternative diagnoses and causes for
petitioner’s conditions. Resp. Ex. A at 9-11.
Dr. Chaudhry described GBS as an acquired disease of the peripheral nervous system
characterized by rapidly progressing ascending paralysis with parethesias. Resp. Ex. A at 8.
Areflexia and involvement of the cranial nerves, diaphragm, and autonomic nervous system are
common. Id. Nerve conduction studies generally show demyelinating electrophysiology and CSF
evaluation will show albuminocytological dissociation. GBS is a monophasic illness with a good
prognosis for recovery, and both IVIG and plasma exchange are effective treatments. Id.
Dr Chaudhry agreed that petitioner had a rapid onset of limb weakness and absent reflexes
consistent with GBS, but he argued that her other features raised doubt about the diagnosis being
24

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 25 of 29
GBS. Resp. Ex. A at 8. He took issue with petitioner’s initial symptoms of weakness in her upper
extremities rather than ascending upward; the asymmetry in abduction between the right and left
shoulder and right and left hip; intact sensory initially despite the presence paresthesia; and lack
of bladder control not normally seen with GBS. Id. Further, he referred to her continuing flares of
paresthesias and weakness up to three years after her acute symptoms as atypical of GBS, raising
the possibility that she suffers from CIDP. Id. at 9. Dr. Chaudhry also took issue with petitioner’s
CSF being normal and that no EMG and nerve conduction studies were done during the acute
phase of her illness or in follow-up, despite petitioner’s persistent symptoms of paresthesias and
weakness. Resp. Ex. A at 9; Resp. Ex. C at 3.
Dr. Chaudhry argues that alternative diagnoses were not explored. Resp. Ex. A at 9. He
submits that the artifact on MRI and petitioner’s bladder issues were an indication of TM, which
should have prompted additional testing that was not done. Resp. Ex. A at 12. An MRI of the brain
should have been done to rule out lesions similar to what was seen on the cervical spine, because
TM is an initial event that correlates with MS. Id. at 9, 12. The asymmetry between right and left
shoulder abduction was suggestive of C5 myeloradiculopathy. Id. at 12. Petitioner’s continuing
intermittent weakness and giving way of her knees may be a feature of a spinal cord lesion, with
depressed reflexes during the acute stage of spinal cord disease. Id.at 9. Blood tests such as serum
anti-aquaporin-4-IgG autoantibodies and anti-myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibodies
were not performed and may have clarified her condition. Id.; Resp. Ex. C at 3.
In Dr. Chaudhry’s opinion, it is more likely that petitioner has CIDP in light of the symptom
fluctuations she experienced up to three years later. Resp. Ex. A at 10; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 641; Pet.
Ex. 8 at 13. Additionally, like petitioner, CIDP patients do not require a ventilator and have
significantly less cranial nerve dysfunction. Resp. Ex. A at 10; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 7.42 Further, like
petitioner, one-third of CIDP patients have a relapsing-remitting course, and this is more common
in younger patients. Resp. Ex. A at 10; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 9.43 Nerve conduction studies, which are
important in confirming CIDP, were never done. Resp. Ex. A at 10. Fatigue is a common symptom
of CIDP and can be a presenting feature, and petitioner complained of fatigue prior to the onset of
acute weakness. Id. Petitioner’s treating physicians raised multiple other diagnoses in addition to
GBS including TM, paresthesias, myelopathy, and proximal myopathy, but no testing was done.
Resp. Ex. C at 1-2; Pet. Ex. 2 at 61-66. Dr. Chaudhry highlighted Dr. Lajara-Nanson’s
disagreement with petitioner’s GBS diagnosis because her CSF testing was normal, she did not
have motor weakness or distal sensory loss in the upper and lower limbs, and her reflexes returned,
which does not occur with GBS. Resp. Ex. C at 1-2; Pet. Ex. 11 at 3.
Further, based on petitioner’s prior medical history, Dr. Chaudhry proposed other possible
diagnoses including idiopathic intracranial hypertension to explain her headaches, hormonal
irregularities, hair loss, tiredness, and unexplained weight gain, and myopathies associated with
cardiac arrhythmias to explain her episodes of syncope in early 2016 that were thought to be
vasovagal. Resp. Ex. A at 10. Finally, petitioner was eventually diagnosed with obstructive sleep
apnea, which is associated with fatigue, tiredness, and headaches. Id. at 11.
41 Ruts et al., supra note 29.
42 Ruts et al., supra note 30.
43 Lewis, supra note 31.
25

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 26 of 29
In Dr. Chaudhry’s opinion, petitioner’s GBS diagnosis is unclear, a host of other possible
diagnoses were never explored, and her treater Dr. Lajara-Nanson questioned the GBS diagnosis
in May 2018.
Dr. Hoke responded to Dr. Chaudhry’s opinions, referencing the medical records as
showing a “clear demonstration” of ascending weakness, paresthesia, evolving areflexia, and
ataxia, all classic features of GBS. Pet. Ex. 15 at 8. He agreed with Dr. Edgar that the absence of
cytoalbuminemic dissociation on CSF testing performed early on in GBS is not unusual and that
CSF testing is generally used to rule out infectious etiology, which it did here. Id. TM was ruled
out based on the MRI results and petitioner lacked bladder and bowel problems. Id. Dr. Hoke also
referenced literature to show that fatigue, muscle weakness, and paresthesia can persist even in
GBS patients who show full recovery on nerve conduction studies. Id.; Pet. Ex. 1744; Pet. Ex. 1845;
Pet. Ex. 1946; Pet. Ex. 2047; Pet. Ex. 21.48 Dr. Hoke commented on Dr. Chaudhry’s reliance on Dr.
Lajara-Nanson’s opinion, referencing literature which “clearly demonstrate[es] the incorrect
rationale” in Dr. Lajara-Nanson’s assessment that petitioner could not have had GBS because she
had good recovery of her reflexes and strength. Pet. Ex. 15 at 8. Dr. Lajara-Nanson saw petitioner
18 months after the onset of her GBS, and while his assessment may have been reflective of
petitioner’s condition at that time, it does not detract from her GBS diagnosis in 2016. Id.; Pet. Ex.
23 at 2. Further, if she had CIDP as suggested by Dr. Chaudhry, she would not have had a normal
examination by Dr. Lajara-Nanson. Pet. Ex. 23 at 2; Pet. Ex. 11.
Dr. Hoke added that Dr. Chaudhry failed to address petitioner’s symptoms of flaccid
paralysis, progressive loss of reflexes, and sensory and motor deficits that evolved over several
days, instead focusing on what he deemed to be “waxing and waning” of petitioner’s weakness in
the three years after her GBS diagnosis. Pet. Ex. 22 at 1.
Dr. Hoke explained that not all GBS patients present with the same symptoms, and the fact
that petitioner did not have an EMG is neither her fault nor does it mean she did not have GBS:
“[i]t would have been nice to have it as a confirmatory test but her treating physicians felt that the
evidence was sufficient to make a diagnosis of GBS after ruling out other alternative diagnoses.”
Pet. Ex. 23 at 1-2. Dr. Hoke added that Dr. Chaudhry claimed petitioner had a lack of sensory
findings atypical for GBS, but the records show petitioner clearly reported numbness and tingling
of her hands and feet to her PCP on December 12, 2016 were indicative of sensory findings. Id. at
2; Pet. Ex. 2 at 55.
Dr. Hoke also disagreed with Dr. Chaudhry’s suggestion that petitioner had TM. He
acknowledged the reference to artifact on the MRI but noted that petitioner never had upper motor
neuron signs throughout her hospitalization, which argues against a TM diagnosis. Pet. Ex. 23 at
2; Pet. Ex. 2 at 58. Further, petitioner’s rapid loss of reflexes fits the presentation for GBS, not TM
or MS. While petitioner had preserved reflexes on December 11, 2016, she was noted to be
44 Forsberg et al., supra note 3.
45 Garssen et al., supra note 18.
46 Merkies & Kieseier, supra note 19.
47 Rekand et al., supra note 6.
48 Garssen et al., supra note 4.
26

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 27 of 29
areflexic when she was first examined by Dr. Edgar upon admission to the hospital. Pet. Ex. 23 at
2; Pet. Ex. 4 at 31-32.
Dr. Hoke concluded that although Dr. Chaudhry raised several possible alternative
diagnoses including CIDP, TM, and MS, the required testing to advance those diagnoses was never
performed. Dr. Chaudhry conceded that petitioner’s treating physicians diagnosed her with
“probable GBS”, and as a specialist in peripheral nerve disorders like GBS, Dr. Hoke believes
GBS is the correct diagnosis. Pet. Ex. 23 at 2.
The issue with Dr. Chaudhry’s opinions is that while many different diagnoses were
considered by petitioner’s treating physicians, once the CSF confirmed that there was no infectious
process and the MRI was determined to be normal, all of petitioner’s physicians agreed that she
had GBS with no further testing deemed necessary. IVIG was started, she began to improve, and
reached a plateau. She then continued to suffer from what her treating physicians considered to be
residual symptoms of her GBS. Dr. Edgar specifically noted that CSF testing done too early, five
days after onset in this case, is commonly normal. Petitioner cannot be penalized for additional
testing her physicians did not think was necessary based on her clinical presentation and response
to treatment. She was diagnosed with GBS by all but one of her treating physicians, and that one
did not see her until 18 months after her illness.
Further, CIDP is a slowly progressive demyelinating polyneuropathy, while GBS is an
acute monophasic peripheral neuropathy. Between December 11, 2016 and December 14, 2016,
petitioner had rapidly developing upper and lower body weakness with numbness, tingling, ataxia,
areflexia, facial diplegia, and loss of motor and sensory.
The totality of the evidence does not demonstrate that a more likely diagnosis exists and
supports petitioner’s diagnosis of GBS, meeting this requirement.
4. Alternative Causation
Dr. Chaudhry argued that even if it were assumed that she did suffer from GBS, evidence
of preceding infections may have been the antecedent trigger. The flu vaccine was not likely the
cause of her symptoms. Resp. Ex. A at 11.
Dr. Chaudhry argued that GBS is a post-infectious immune disorder, with two thirds of
patients having diarrhea or an upper respiratory illness several weeks before the onset of
symptoms. Resp. Ex. A at 11; see Resp. Ex. A, Tab 149; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 250; Resp. Ex. A, Tab
3.51 GBS has been associated with C. jejuni infection, found in 25-50% of GBS patients,
cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, influenza A virus, mycoplasma pneumoniae, Haemophilus
influenza, hepatitis E, Zika, and chikungunya. GBS has also been reported following vaccination
for rabies and rabies and influenza A. Resp. Ex. A at 11; Resp. Ex. A, Tab 152 at 2.
49 Willison et al., supra note 5.
50 Vriesendorp, supra note 8.
51 Fokke et al., supra note 13.
52 Willison et al., supra note 5.
27

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 28 of 29
According to Dr. Chaudhry, petitioner had three possible infections prior to her onset of
weakness and paresthesias. The first was an upper respiratory infection on October 31, 2016, five
to six weeks prior to onset, with sore throat, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness. Resp. Ex. A at
11; Pet. Ex. 2 at 48. The second was another upper respiratory infection on December 7, 2016,
three days prior to onset, with head and chest congestion, earaches, nasal drainage, and cough.
Resp. Ex. A at 11; Pet. Ex. 2 at 51. Third, bloodwork done on December 13, 2016 was positive for
EBVG and EBNUCL AB, though Dr. Chaudhry conceded these findings do not suggest acute
infection, but noted that Epstein-Barr Virus is a known antecedent to GBS. Resp. Ex. A at 11;
Resp. Ex. C at 4; Pet. Ex. 2 at 74. In Dr. Chaudhry’s opinion, if petitioner had GBS, it was caused
by the immediate antecedent upper respiratory infection, and Dr. Hoke ignored these infections.
Resp. Ex. A at 11-13; Pet. Ex. 2 at 61-66, 68, 82-83, 88-93, 111; Pet. Ex. 4 at 47. Dr. Chaudhry
contends that the failure to identify a specific infection does not mean infection was not the cause
of petitioner’s GBS. Resp. Ex. C at 3.
Dr. Chaudhry argued that if petitioner did have GBS, it was caused by the viral infection
that preceded her illness because upper respiratory infections precede 38% of cases of GBS. Resp.
Ex. A at 13-14. Therefore, he opined that petitioner’s infection(s) were more likely the cause of
her neurological symptoms. The literature does indeed provide statistics regarding the association
between viral infections, surgery, pregnancy, toxins and GBS. Resp. Ex. C at 3-4; Resp. Ex. C,
Tab 3.53
Dr. Hoke pointed out that although several medical providers referenced petitioner’s upper
respiratory infection and sinus congestion “at some point prior to the onset of her GBS”, they did
not attribute her GBS to those infectious causes. Pet. Ex. 22 at 1. The medical records do not show
that any of her treating physicians believed any of the common infections responsible for GBS
were responsible for petitioner’s GBS. Id. Dr. Hoke contends that the history of infection noted in
the record was simply a reference to temporal events around the time of her onset of GBS. Pet. Ex.
23 at 1. There was no record of any specific infection and Dr. Chaudhry agreed that blood work
did not show any infection believed to cause GBS. Further, the exclusionary criteria for a Table
injury “makes no reference to ill-defined generalized infectious processes” such as a sinus
infection, congestion, or upper respiratory infection. Dr. Hoke maintained his opinion that
petitioner suffered a Table injury. Pet. Ex. 22 at 2.
The Federal Circuit has held that:
[T]he bare statistical fact that there are more reported cases of viral
encephalopathies than there are reported cases of DTP encephalopathies is not
evidence that in a particular case an encephalopathy following a DTP vaccination
was in fact caused by a viral infection present in the child and not caused by the
DTP vaccine.
Knudsen by Knudsen v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 35 F.3d 543, 550 (Fed. Cir.
1994). The Federal Circuit repeated this view in Boatmon v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 941
F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019), holding that the special master impermissibly found based on statistical
53 J.B. Winer et al., A prospective study of acute idiopathic neuropathy. II. Antecedent events, 51 J. NEUROLOGY,
NEUROSURGERY, & PSYCHIATRY 613 (1988), filed as “Resp. Ex. C, Tab 3.”
28

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 69 Filed 08/19/24 Page 29 of 29
evidence alone that the child had a defective brainstem, making him vulnerable to vaccines.
Petitioner rightfully argues that Knudsen makes clear that it is legally irrelevant that infections
may be responsible for more cases of GBS than the influenza vaccine, and it is therefore
“prohibited” for the special master to consider statistical evidence “based strictly on probabilities”
without more to defeat a Table claim. Motion at 4. Thus, without more, statistical analyses such
as that employed by Dr. Chaudhry are legally irrelevant to determining vaccine causation. Id. at 4-
5.
Further, the Vaccine Injury Table QAIs contain exclusionary criteria for GBS, but
infections are not one of them. 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(vi). Other than his reliance on the literature
that infections are a known cause of GBS, Dr. Chaudhry provided no evidence to show that an
infection caused petitioner’s GBS in this case. Simply showing that an infection can cause GBS
does not satisfy respondent’s burden; he must also show by preponderant evidence that the
infection did cause petitioner’s GBS. Respondent failed to do so.
Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence that she has satisfied the requirements of a
Table GBS claim.
V. Conclusion
Based on the record as a whole and for the reasons discussed above, I find there is
preponderant evidence that petitioner meets the Table criteria for GBS. Therefore, petitioner’s
Motion for Ruling on the Record is granted, and petitioner is entitled to compensation.
Accordingly, this matter shall proceed to damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
29

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01121-1
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-17
Pages: 4
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/20/2024) regarding 74 DECISION on Proffer. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (dkj) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 77 Filed 12/17/24 Page 1 of 4
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 17-1121V
Filed: November 20, 2024
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
HEATHER ADAMS *
*
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. *
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH *
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leah Durant, Esq., Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Ilana Greenberg, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON PROFFER1
Roth, Special Master:
On August 21, 2017, Heather Adams [“Ms. Adams or “petitioner”] filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that
she developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 8,
2016. Proffer, filed November 20, 2024, at ¶¶ 1-4. A Ruling on Entitlement issued on July 23,
2024, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 67.
On November 20, 2024, respondent filed a proffer agreeing to settle this case and
describing the settlement terms. Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I 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
(2018).
1

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 77 Filed 12/17/24 Page 2 of 4
A lump sum of $120,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Heather
Adams. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
under § 300aa-15(a).
I adopt the proffer attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms
set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
Mindy Michaels Roth
Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 77 Filed 12/17/24 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
HEATHER ADAMS,
Petitioner, No. 17-1121V
Special Master Roth
v. ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On May 23, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”)
arguing that she has established entitlement to compensation for Guillain-Barre
Syndrome (“GBS”) resulting from an influenza vaccine. ECF No. 56. Respondent filed his
Response to Petitioner’s Motion on February 3, 2022, recommending that entitlement to
compensation be denied. ECF No. 64. On July 23, 2024, the Court issued a Ruling on
Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation.1 ECF No. 67.
I. Items of Compensation
Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$120,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s
July 23, 2024, entitlement decision.

Case 1:17-vv-01121-UNJ Document 77 Filed 12/17/24 Page 4 of 4
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).2 Petitioner agrees.
II. Form of the Award
Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.
Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a
lump sum payment of $120,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner
agrees.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
VORIS JOHNSON
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
s/ Ilana S. Greenberg
ILANA S. GREENBERG
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146
Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C.
20044-0146
Direct dial: (202) 514-0372
Email: Ilana.Greenberg@usdoj.gov
Dated: November 20, 2024
2 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 3: USCOURTS-cofc-1_17-vv-01121-cl-extra-10761003
Date issued/filed: 2024-12-17
Pages: 1
Docket text: Supplementary opinion from CourtListener cluster 10294415
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                               OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
                                         No. 17-1121V
                                   Filed: November 20, 2024

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
HEATHER ADAMS           *
                        *
         Petitioner,    *
                        *
                        *
v.                      *
                        *
SECRETARY OF HEALTH     *
AND HUMAN SERVICES,     *
                        *
         Respondent.    *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Leah Durant, Esq., Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
Ilana Greenberg, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

                                     DECISION ON PROFFER 1

Roth, Special Master:

        On August 21, 2017, Heather Adams [“Ms. Adams or “petitioner”] filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 2 Petitioner alleges that
she developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome after receiving an influenza vaccine on November 8,
2016. Proffer, filed November 20, 2024, at ¶¶ 1-4. A Ruling on Entitlement issued on July 23,
2024, finding petitioner entitled to compensation. ECF No. 67.

       On November 20, 2024, respondent filed a proffer agreeing to settle this case and
describing the settlement terms. Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:

1
  Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. 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, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I 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
(2018).

                                                     1
           A lump sum of $120,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Heather
           Adams. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would be available
           under § 300aa-15(a).

        I adopt the proffer attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and on the terms
set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this
decision. 3

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                             s/ Mindy Michaels Roth
                                             Mindy Michaels Roth
                                             Special Master




3
  Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
                                                2
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
                           OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS


    HEATHER ADAMS,

                 Petitioner,                          No. 17-1121V
                                                      Special Master Roth
    v.                                                ECF

    SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
    HUMAN SERVICES,

                 Respondent.


                       PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION

         On May 23, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion for a Ruling on the Record (“Motion”)

arguing that she has established entitlement to compensation for Guillain-Barre

Syndrome (“GBS”) resulting from an influenza vaccine. ECF No. 56. Respondent filed his

Response to Petitioner’s Motion on February 3, 2022, recommending that entitlement to

compensation be denied. ECF No. 64. On July 23, 2024, the Court issued a Ruling on

Entitlement, finding that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 1 ECF No. 67.

I.       Items of Compensation

         Based upon the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded

$120,000.00, which represents all elements of compensation to which petitioner would be




1
 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Special Master issues a damages decision in conformity with this proffer,
respondent waives his right to seek review of such damages decision. However, respondent
reserves his right, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e), to seek review of the Special Master’s
July 23, 2024, entitlement decision.
entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).2 Petitioner agrees.

II.       Form of the Award

          Petitioner is a competent adult. Evidence of guardianship is not required in this case.

Respondent recommends that the compensation provided to petitioner should be made through a

lump sum payment of $120,000.00, in the form of a check payable to petitioner. Petitioner

agrees.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                BRIAN M. BOYNTON
                                                Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

                                                C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
                                                Director
                                                Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                                HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
                                                Deputy Director
                                                Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                                VORIS JOHNSON
                                                Assistant Director
                                                Torts Branch, Civil Division

                                                s/ Ilana S. Greenberg
                                                ILANA S. GREENBERG
                                                Trial Attorney
                                                Torts Branch, Civil Division
                                                U.S. Department of Justice
                                                P.O. Box 146
                                                Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C.
                                                20044-0146
                                                Direct dial: (202) 514-0372
                                                Email: Ilana.Greenberg@usdoj.gov

Dated: November 20, 2024



2
 Should petitioner die prior to the entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the
Court for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future
medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering.
                                                   2