VICP Registry Case Source Bundle Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01211 Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01211 Petitioner: Garrett D. Polowy Filed: 2018-09-22 Decided: 2021-12-09 Vaccine: Tdap Vaccination date: 2016-12-08 Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) Outcome: compensated Award amount USD: 20000 AI-assisted case summary: Garrett D. Polowy filed a petition on September 22, 2018, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He alleged that he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving a Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on December 8, 2016. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Mr. Polowy's GBS or any other injury. Despite maintaining their respective positions, both parties entered into a joint stipulation to settle the case, agreeing that compensation should be awarded to Mr. Polowy. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the stipulation and found it to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision of the court. The stipulation awarded Mr. Polowy a lump sum of $20,000.00, payable by check to Petitioner, as compensation for all damages available under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Special Master approved this award and directed that judgment be entered, unless a motion for review was filed. Petitioner's counsel was Amy A. Senerth of Muller Brazil LLP, and respondent's counsel was Traci R. Patton of the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision was issued on December 9, 2021. Theory of causation field: Petitioner Garrett D. Polowy alleged that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of a Tdap vaccine received on December 8, 2016. Respondent denied causation. The parties entered into a joint stipulation to settle the case, agreeing to an award of compensation. The stipulation was adopted by Special Master Katherine E. Oler on December 9, 2021. The award was a lump sum of $20,000.00, representing compensation for all damages under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The public decision does not describe the specific theory of causation, medical experts, onset, symptoms, tests, treatments, or the mechanism of injury. Petitioner was represented by Amy A. Senerth, and Respondent by Traci R. Patton. Public staged source text: ================================================================================ DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_18-vv-01211-0 Date issued/filed: 2021-12-09 Pages: 7 Docket text: PUBLIC RULING (Originally filed: 9/22/2021) regarding 33 DECISION: Stipulation Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (nvb) Service on parties made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1:18-vv-01211-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/09/21 Page 1 of 7 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 18-1211V (not to be published) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GARRETT D. POLOWY * * Filed: September 22, 2021 Petitioner, * * * v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages; * Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barré HUMAN SERVICES, * Syndrome (“GBS”). * * Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil LLP, Dresher PA, for Petitioner Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1 On August 14, 2018, Garrett D. Polowy (“Petitioner”) filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”) as a result of the Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received on December 8, 2016. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated September 22, 2021 (ECF No. 32); see also Petition. 1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “not to be published,” it will nevertheless be posted on the Court of Federal Claims’ website in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2012). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the Decision in its present form will be available. Id. 2 The Vaccine Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2012)) (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). All subsequent references to sections of the Vaccine Act shall be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa. Case 1:18-vv-01211-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/09/21 Page 2 of 7 Respondent denies “that the Tdap vaccine caused Petitioner to suffer GBS or any other injury or condition.” See Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above- stated positions, agreed in a stipulation dated September 22, 2021 that the issues before them can be settled and that a decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation. ECF No. 32. I have reviewed the file, and based upon that review, I conclude that the parties’ stipulation is reasonable. I therefore adopt it as my decision in awarding damages on the terms set forth therein. The stipulation awards: A lump sum of $20,000.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. Stipulation ¶ 8. This award represents compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). I approve a Vaccine Program award in the requested amount set forth above to be made to Petitioner. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Katherine E. Oler Katherine E. Oler Special Master 3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by jointly filing notice renouncing their right to seek review. Case 1:18-vv-01211-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/09/21 Page 3 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-01211-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/09/21 Page 4 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-01211-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/09/21 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-01211-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/09/21 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:18-vv-01211-UNJ Document 39 Filed 12/09/21 Page 7 of 7