VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00725
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00725
Petitioner: Sanders Robinson
Filed: 2019-05-16
Decided: 2022-06-21
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2016-11-28
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 147512

AI-assisted case summary:
Sanders Robinson filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program on May 16, 2019, alleging he developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after receiving a tetanus-diptheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on November 28, 2016. The respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Mr. Robinson's GBS or any other injury. Despite the respondent's denial, the parties reached a settlement. The Special Master adopted their joint stipulation, awarding Mr. Robinson compensation. The award includes a lump sum of $147,512.94, representing $46,821.49 for first-year life care expenses, $100,000.00 for pain and suffering, and $691.45 for past unreimbursable expenses, payable to the petitioner. Additionally, an amount sufficient to purchase an annuity contract was awarded, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased. These amounts represent compensation for all damages available under the program. The decision was issued by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth on June 21, 2022. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Diana L. Stadelnikas, Esq., represented the petitioner, and Mark K. Hellie, Esq., represented the respondent.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Sanders Robinson alleged that he developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after receiving a Tdap vaccine on November 28, 2016. Respondent denied causation. The parties reached a joint stipulation to settle the case. The Special Master adopted the stipulation, awarding compensation. The award included a lump sum of $147,512.94 for first-year life care expenses, pain and suffering, and past unreimbursable expenses, plus an amount for an annuity. The public decision does not detail the specific theory of causation, medical experts, or the mechanism of injury.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-00725-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-06-21
Pages: 10
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 5/25/2022) regarding 44 DECISION Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Mindy Michaels Roth. (ec) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 10
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-725V
Filed: May 25, 2022
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
SANDERS ROBINSON, * UNPUBLISHED
*
Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;
* Guillain-Barré Syndrome
v. * (“GBS”); Tetanus-diptheria-
* acellular pertussis (“Tdap”)
SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine.
AND HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
Respondent. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Diana L. Stadelnikas, Esq., Maglio Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.
Mark K. Hellie, Esq., US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
Roth, Special Master:
On May 16, 2019, Sanders Robinson [“Mr. Robinson” or “petitioner”] filed a petition for
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.2 Petitioner alleges that
he developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) after receiving a tetanus-diptheria-acellular
pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on November 28, 2016. Stipulation, filed May 25, 2022, at ¶¶ 1-4.
Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from GBS, CIDP, any other
injury, or his current condition. Stipulation at ¶ 6.
1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the
Court of Federal Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-
347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision
will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s
inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party
has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is
a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes
medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id.
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).
1

Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 10
Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to settle the case. On May 25, 2022, the parties filed
a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.
Respondent agrees to issue the following payment:
a) A lump sum of $147,512.94, which represents compensation for first-year life care
expenses ($46,821.49), pain and suffering ($100,000.00), and past unreimbursable
expenses ($691.45) in the form of a check payable to petitioner;
b) An amount sufficient to purchase the annuity contract described in paragraph 10
below, paid to the life insurance company from which the annuity will be purchased
(the “Life Insurance Company”).
These amounts represent compensation for all damages that would be available under
§300aa-15(a).
I adopt the parties’ stipulation 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 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 10

Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 4 of 10

Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 5 of 10

Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 6 of 10

Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 7 of 10

Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 8 of 10

Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 9 of 10

Case 1:19-vv-00725-UNJ Document 48 Filed 06/21/22 Page 10 of 10