Chaneice Thompson v. HHS - Influenza, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (2020)

Filed 2018-09-06Decided 2020-09-02Vaccine Influenza
compensated$75,000

Case summary [AI summaries can sometimes make mistakes]

Chaneice Thompson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on September 6, 2018. Petitioner alleged that she suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of receiving an influenza vaccine on October 27, 2015, and that she experienced residual effects for more than six months.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, respondent, denied that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's GBS or any other injury, and denied that petitioner sustained a GBS Table Injury. Respondent suggested that an upper respiratory infection, which medical records documented as occurring close in temporal proximity to the onset of her alleged GBS, was a more likely cause.

Despite these denials, on July 30, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation agreeing that compensation should be awarded. Chief Special Master Brian H.

Corcoran found the stipulation reasonable and adopted it as the court's decision. Chaneice Thompson was awarded a lump sum of $75,000.00, payable to Petitioner, as compensation for all items of damages.

The decision was issued on September 2, 2020. Petitioner was represented by Amy A.

Senerth of Muller Brazil, LLP, and respondent was represented by Julia Marter Collison of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses.

Theory of causation

Petitioner Chaneice Thompson alleged Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) following an influenza vaccine administered on October 27, 2015. Respondent denied causation and that GBS was a Table Injury, positing an upper respiratory infection as a more likely cause. The parties filed a joint stipulation on July 30, 2020, agreeing to compensation. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran adopted the stipulation, awarding a lump sum of $75,000.00 on September 2, 2020. The public text states the theory is "Table" but does not detail the specific mechanism or expert testimony relied upon, only noting the respondent's denial and alternative theory. Petitioner was represented by Amy A. Senerth, and respondent by Julia Marter Collison.

Source PDFs 2 total · 1 downloaded