VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01674
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01674
Petitioner: David Griswold
Filed: 2019-10-29
Decided: 2022-08-08
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2016-10-31
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 50000

AI-assisted case summary:
David Griswold filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) caused by the influenza vaccine he received on October 31, 2016. He also alleged that he suffered residual effects of his GBS for more than six months. The respondent initially contested entitlement, arguing that Mr. Griswold failed to meet the six-month severity requirement. However, the respondent acknowledged that Mr. Griswold's claim met the GBS Table criteria and other requirements for compensation. The court found that Mr. Griswold did suffer residual effects of GBS for more than six months, satisfying the severity requirement and other conditions for entitlement. The case proceeded to a damages decision, where the parties stipulated to an award. The court awarded Mr. Griswold $50,000.00 for pain and suffering. The decision noted that while GBS was listed as an active problem until January 2019, the focus of treatment in later years shifted to other co-morbidities like knee pain, hernia, and cardiac issues, suggesting the residual GBS symptoms were not severe enough to prioritize over these other conditions.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01674-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-05-13
Pages: 12
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 03/30/2022) regarding 35 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 12
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1674V
UNPUBLISHED
DAVID GRISWOLD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: March 30, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Findings of Fact; Statutory Six Month
HUMAN SERVICES, Severity Requirement; Ruling on
Entitlement; Table Injury; Influenza
Respondent. (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-Barre
Syndrome (GBS)
William I. Goldsmith, Goldsmith & Hull, APC, Northridge, CA, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On October 29, 2019, David Griswold filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
caused-in-fact by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 31, 2016. Petition
at 1, ¶¶ 2, 20. He further alleges that he suffered the residual effects of his GBS for more
than six months. Id. at ¶ 21; see Section 11(c)(1)(D) (the Vaccine Act’s severity
requirement).
1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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, 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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 12
While acknowledging that GBS was listed as an active problem in medical records
more than six months post-vaccination, Respondent insists “there is no evidence of
neurological sequelae that were more likely than not related to GBS in any medical visit
after February 2017.” Rule 4(c) Report at 7. Thus, he maintains that Petitioner has failed
to satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement. Id. at 6; see Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i)
(requiring more than six months of sequelae in cases not involving death or inpatient
hospitalization and surgical intervention). However, Respondent acknowledges that
Petitioner’s claim satisfies the GBS Table criteria, and otherwise meets the requirements
for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Rule 4(c) Report at 6, 6 n.5 (specifically
addressing the requirements of Sections 11(c)(1)(B)(1)(i)(I) and 16(a)(2)).
For the reasons set forth below, I find Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his
GBS for more than six months, and he has satisfied the other requirements of a
compensable Table GBS injury. Petitioner is thus entitled to compensation under the
Vaccine Act.
I. Relevant Procedural History
Mr. Griswold filed his Petition without medical records on the eve of the expiration
of the time to initiate a claim under the Vaccine Act’s three-year statute of limitations.3
Over the subsequent four-month period, he filed his birth certificate, two declarations
signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746, and some of the required
medical records. Exhibits 1-4, First and Second Declarations, ECF Nos. 6-7, 11-12.
Thereafter, the case was activated and assigned to the Special Processing Unit (OSM’s
process for attempting to resolve certain, likely-to-settle claims). ECF No. 14.
During the initial status conference conducted on April 2, 2020, the parties
discussed prior medical records which appeared to be outstanding and the need for
additional evidence to establish that Petitioner suffered the residual effects of his GBS for
more than six months. ECF No. 17. Petitioner was ordered to file any outstanding prior
medical records and a detailed affidavit addressing his medical treatment and condition
prior to and after vaccination. Id. After several requests for additional time, Petitioner filed
a third declaration explaining that he rarely sought medical care prior to vaccination due
to his lack of medical insurance - not obtained until October 2016, and needed only limited
treatment for knee pain. Third Declaration, filed Nov. 16, 2020, ECF No. 24.
3 Alleging bilateral weakness in his hand beginning on November 7, 2016, Petitioner was required to file his
Petition prior to November 7, 2019. See Section 16(a)(2) (requiring that a petition be filed within 36 months
of the first symptom or manifestation of a petitioner’s injury).
2

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 12
On March 22, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) Report contesting entitlement
and identifying additional medical records which were needed. ECF No. 26. In response,
Petitioner filed a brief from Tahlia Spector, M.D., F.A.C.E.P.,4 opining that the medical
record as it currently stood supported a finding of at least six months of residual GBS
symptoms, and a status report requesting additional time to provide Petitioner’s inpatient
rehabilitation records. ECF Nos. 27, 28. He filed the outstanding medical records on
August 11, 2021. Exhibit 5, ECF No. 30.
During a telephonic status conference on December 16, 2021, Petitioner indicated
that he had tracked down one of his former primary care providers (“PCPs”), who had left
the clinic where she treated Petitioner, and hoped to obtain additional evidence from her
within the next few weeks. ECF 32. On March 7, 2022, Petitioner filed the medical record
from a February 28, 2022 visit with the treating physician, Ana S. Lopes, M.D., at her
current urgent care clinic. Exhibit 6, ECF No. 34.
II. Finding of Fact Regarding Duration
At issue is whether Petitioner continued to suffer the residual effects of GBS for
more than six months. Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (statutory six-month severity requirement).
A. Authority
Pursuant to Vaccine Act Section 13(a)(1)(A), a petitioner must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the matters required in the petition by Vaccine Act
Section 11(c)(1). A special master must consider, but is not bound by, any diagnosis,
conclusion, judgment, test result, report, or summary concerning the nature, causation,
and aggravation of petitioner’s injury or illness that is contained in a medical record.
Section 13(b)(1). “Medical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy
evidence. The records contain information supplied to or by health professionals to
facilitate diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. With proper treatment hanging in
the balance, accuracy has an extra premium. These records are also generally
contemporaneous to the medical events.” Cucuras v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 993
F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, where medical records are clear, consistent, and complete, they
should be afforded substantial weight. Lowrie v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 03-
1585V, 2005 WL 6117475, at *20 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Dec. 12, 2005). “The medical
4 Dr. Spector is an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles
(“UCLA”), David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Her brief will be referred to as “Dr. Spector’s Expert
Report.”
3

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 4 of 12
records made at the time treatment was sought or provided are far more reliable than the
witnesses' testimony, five years later, to the contrary.” Id. at *20.
However, this rule does not always apply. The United States Court of Federal
Claims has recognized that “medical records may be incomplete or inaccurate.” Camery
v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 42 Fed. Cl. 381, 391 (1998). “Written records which
are, themselves, inconsistent, should be accorded less deference than those which are
internally consistent.” Murphy v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 23 Cl. Ct. 726, 733 (1991)
(quoting with approval the standard used by the special master below), aff'd per curiam,
968 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1992). And the Federal Circuit recently “reject[ed] as incorrect
the presumption that medical records are accurate and complete as to all the patient’s
physical conditions.” Kirby v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 997 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed.
Cir. 2021).
The Claims Court has also said that medical records may be outweighed by
testimony that is given later in time that is “consistent, clear, cogent, and compelling.”
Camery, 42 Fed. Cl. at 391 (citing Blutstein v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 90-
2808, 1998 WL 408611, at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. June 30, 1998)). A special master
may find that the first symptom or manifestation of onset of an injury occurred “within the
time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table even though the occurrence of such
symptom or manifestation was not recorded or was incorrectly recorded as having
occurred outside such period.” Section 13(b)(2). “Such a finding may be made only upon
demonstration by a preponderance of the evidence that the onset [of the injury] . . . did in
fact occur within the time period described in the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id.
The special master is obligated to fully consider and compare the medical records,
testimony, and all other relevant and reliable evidence contained in the record. La Londe,
110 Fed. Cl. at 204 (citing Section 12(d)(3); Vaccine Rule 8); see also Burns v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 3 F.3d 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (holding that it is within the special
master’s discretion to determine whether to afford greater weight to medical records or to
other evidence, such as oral testimony surrounding the events in question that was given
at a later date, provided that such determination is rational).
B. Analysis
I make the finding regarding six-month sequelae after a complete review of the
record to include all medical records, declarations, expert reports, arguments, and
additional evidence. Specifically, I highlight the following:
4

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 5 of 12
• On October 31, 2016, Petitioner was seen as a new patient at the Facey
Clinic for several years of bilateral knee pain. Exhibit 2 at 306. He reported
that taking glucosamine, receiving a cartilage injection administered by a
“backyard” doctor, and going to a pain clinic had failed to alleviate his pain.
Indicating that he was required to do a lot of bending and lifting, Petitioner
stated he “[wa]s finding decreasing difficult[y] to try to work.” Id.; see id. at
204 (indicating Petitioner owns his own pool company). Petitioner was
assessed as having bilateral knee pain, as well as a possible hernia,
hypertension, and alcohol dependency. Id. at 307. He received the influenza
and pneumococcal conjugate 13-valent vaccines at this visit. Id. at 89.
• Eight days post-vaccination, on November 8, 2016, Petitioner returned to
the Facey Clinic, complaining of bilateral weakness and numbness in his
hands which started the previous day. Exhibit 2 at 304. The PCP he saw
noted that Petitioner started taking medication for hypertension a week
earlier, had osteoarthritis in both knees, did not smoke, and consumed
approximately four to five ounces of hard alcohol each evening. Unable to
rule out the possibility of a stroke, the PCP advised Petitioner to go to the
emergency room by ambulance. Id.
• Although he refused to travel by ambulance – preferring his private vehicle,
Petitioner went at the emergency room as directed. Exhibit 2 at 301, 304.
He again reported bilateral weakness and numbness in his hands since
yesterday and an inability to open one of his hands, presumably his left in
which he experienced greater weakness. Id. at 279, 300. Petitioner denied
any numbness, tingling, or weakness in his legs and reported suffering five
days of diarrhea a week earlier which he attributed to over-the-counter
magnesium tablets and receiving the flu vaccine the previous week. Id. at
279. A cervical MRI revealed “no evidence of a cord lesion or a significant
radiculopathy,” and Petitioner was observed exhibiting depressed reflexes
throughout believed to be “secondary to a new process versus secondary
to a chronic neuropathy from alcoholism.” Id. at 268. He was admitted to the
hospital. Id.
• After his neurologic evaluation, Petitioner reported weakness in his lower
extremities as well. Exhibit 2 at 268. The results of a lumbar puncture
revealed elevated proteins levels, and Petitioner was diagnosed with acute
inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (“AIDP”) and prescribed IVIG
treatment. Id. On his fourth day of hospitalization at least one treating
physician considered the flu shot Petitioner received as a “[p]ossible
trigger.” Id. at 266.
5

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 6 of 12
• After finishing IVIG treatment, Petitioner was recommended for acute
rehabilitation due to his “overall rehabilitation needs, co-morbidities, and
risk for complications or poor outcome at a lower level of care.” Exhibit 2 at
242. In addition to his bilateral knee pain, it was noted that he had developed
gout. Id. at 254.
• When first assessed for in-patient rehabilitation on November 15, 2016,
Petitioner was unable to walk without assistance. Exhibit 5 at 993-94. The
next day, he was described as unable to dress himself without assistance,
due in part to a lack of strength in his hands. Id. at 1012. However, two days
later on November 18, 2016, his hand strength was described as gradually
improving. Id. at 1056. Because some of his difficulties walking were
caused, not by fatigue, but by knee pain (id. at 1036), he was given soft
knee braces (id. at 1073).
• By November 19, 2016, Petitioner still experienced bouts of fatigue, but had
to be reminded to use his two wheeled walker for safety. Exhibit 5 at 1080.
On his last day of inpatient rehabilitation, Petitioner was observed to be
walking and dressing himself, working on his endurance, and requiring only
one break to rest. Id. at 1136. Although Petitioner sometimes required
additional time, he was able to pull out his chair to sit down, pick-up objects
off the floor, descend stairs, and eat unassisted. It was recommended that
he seek treatment for his right knee pain post-discharge from an
orthopedist. Id. When discharged on November 23, 2016, it was noted that
Petitioner had no complaints of pain or discomfort. Id. at 1156.
• On November 28, 2016, Petitioner was seen at the Facey clinic for a follow-
up appointment of his hospitalization and knee pain. Exhibit 2 at 227. At this
visit, Petitioner described being unable to move his arms or sit up due to
while hospitalized for GBS. Id. He was referred to an orthopedist at the
Facey Clinic for treatment of his knee pain. Id. at 228.
• At the orthopedic appointment on December 5, 2016, Petitioner described
several years of knee pain which was worse in the right knee, reported that
a steroid injection several years ago helped, stated that he felt increasing
pain at the end of the day due to a need to walk and stand while working,
and indicated that he preferred to try nonsurgical options before having a
knee replacement. Exhibit 2 at 224. Observed as having a normal gait,
coordination, and muscle strength, Petitioner was administered cortisone
injections in both knees. Id. at 225.
6

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 7 of 12
• Petitioner returned to the Facey Clinic for a follow-up appointment with a
PCP on December 19, 2016. Exhibit 2 at 221. Although conditions such as
his knee pain, hernia, and hypertension were also discussed, the primary
purpose of the appointment appears to be GBS. Id. The assessment section
includes Petitioner’s hypertension and bilateral knee pain, and contains
separate entries for GBS following vaccination and hand weakness. Id. at
222. The proposed plan includes notations listing the hypertension
medication prescribed and stating that the steroid injections had improved
his knee pain, and an entry simply stating, “[m]uscle weakness and
demyelinating.” Id. at 223.
• At his next visit to the Facey Clinic on February 20, 2017, Petitioner was
seen by Dr. Ana Lopes.5 Exhibit 2 at 216. Dr. Lopes discussed Petitioner’s
knee pain, chronic gout, hypertension, and alcohol use but provided the
most detail regarding his GBS. Id. at 216. After describing Petitioner’s
severe symptoms while hospitalized and stating that “he feels [his]
muscle[s] came back pretty quickly,” Dr. Lopes noted that Petitioner had
declined at home PT, was working on getting better, and was walking
through yards and stairs. Id. When prescribing treatment, she again
mentioned Petitioner had declined further PT. She “encouraged him to
continue to stay active” and instructed him not to receive the flu shot again.
Id. at 217.
• Petitioner visited the orthopedist again on March 6, 2017, for treatment of
his bilateral knee pain. Exhibit 2 at 214. At that time, Petitioner reported that
he was “not even able to walk even smaller distances secondary to severe
pain.” Id. It was also noted that Petitioner developed GBS after receiving
the flu shot last fall and had “mild weakness of [the] bilateral lower
extremities.” Id. Due to the relief obtained from past cortisone injections, the
orthopedist recommended euflexxa injections.6 Exhibit 2 at 215. Petitioner
returned to the orthopedist twice in March and once in April to receive these
injections. Id. at 208-13.
5 Prior to this appointment, Petitioner was usually treated by a different PCP, James Tashiro, M.D. E.g.,
Exhibit 2 at 221, 227, 306. It appears Dr. Lopes took over Dr. Tashiro’s duties as Petitioner’s PCP at this
time. She is the treating physician who Petitioner recently saw on February 28, 2022. Exhibit 6 at 1-6.
6 Euflexxa is a one percent sodium hyaluronate injection “used to relieve knee pain due to osteoarthritis.”
See https://www.euflexxa.com/ (last visited on Mar. 25, 2022).
7

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 8 of 12
• On May 22, 2017, Petitioner was again seen by Dr. Lopes, regarding his
GBS, severe right knee pain, and possible hernia. Exhibit 2 at 203.
Describing a complaint of GBS following the flu vaccine, Dr. Lopes reported
that Petitioner declined PT, that she had encouraged him again to stay
active, and that he should not receive the flu vaccine again. Id. Petitioner
reported that he and his wife had moved in with his mother three months
ago, that he was depressed and had little energy, that his pool business
was in debt and his wife couldn’t work, and that he felt he could not undergo
knee replacement surgery because he couldn’t afford to miss work due to
his financial concerns. Id. at 203-05. Dr. Lopes performed a suicide
assessment, reviewed Petitioner’s current medications, and prescribed
additional medication for his depression. Id. at 206.
• Throughout the remainder of 2017 and early 2018, Petitioner sought
treatment for his hernia and knee pain. E.g., Exhibit 2 at 201-02 (referral for
potential hernia repair in June 2017), 112-120 (visit regarding knee
osteoarthritis and pain). Petitioner’s GBS remained on the list of active
problems during this time. Id. At a January 2, 2018 visit with an orthopedic
surgeon to discuss knee replacement surgery, Petitioner reported
neurologic weakness. Id. at 112. At his pre-op appointment on March 19,
2018, the orthopedic surgeon updated and again included GBS on
Petitioner’s list of active problems. Id. at 104.
• It appears that Petitioner’s knee replacement surgery was delayed due to
aortic insufficiency discovered in April and repaired in June 2018.7 Petitioner
did not undergo his right knee replacement until January 2019. Exhibit 2 at
60. The first time GBS or AIDP was omitted from the active problem list can
be found in the record from pre-op examination performed in early January
2019. Exhibit 2 at 62. In hospital records from Petitioner’s January 17-19
hospitalization and right knee replacement, Petitioner’s GBS, aortic
insufficiency, and gout are described as resolved. Id. at 13.
• On February 28, 2022, Petitioner visited Dr. Lopes for ongoing hand
weakness from wrists to fingertips which started with his GBS and caused
7 Within the medical records from the Facey Clinic are records from visits to the Cardiovascular Consultants
Medical Group showing Petitioner was seen for fatigue and shortness of breath in April 2018. Exhibit 2 at
185. It was noted that Petitioner’s high blood pressure had been poorly controlled. Testing revealed severe
aortic insufficiency and left ventricular enlargement. Id. It appears Petitioner underwent an aortic valve
replacement in June 2018. See id. at 172. Petitioner has yet to provide these copies of these medical
records obtained directly from the cardiologist due to their move to an archived storage facility. See Third
Declaration at ¶ 17.
8

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 9 of 12
him to drop objects. Exhibit 6 at 1. After examining x-rays taken that day,
Dr. Lopes observed “bilateral deformities noted [to be] consistent with his
history of Dupuytren’s contractures,[8] no acute fracture, [and] . . . some
arthritic changes.” Id. Reporting that he couldn’t carry his pool equipment or
perform his work like before, Petitioner stated that “he was working 6 days
a week [and] . . . currently works 5 - half days.” Id.
• In the medical records filed, Dupuytren’s contractures first appears in the
list of active problems in early January 2018. Exhibit 2 at 114. Although
similarly included in the medical records from later visits, none of the
records contain a discussion of or time frame for this condition. Id. at 6-116.
The above medical entries show that Petitioner’s GBS first manifested as bilateral
hand weakness and numbness on November 7, 2016, approximately seven days post-
vaccination. After his hospitalization the following day, his symptoms progressed -
affecting his lower extremities as well. When assessed for in-patient rehabilitation on
November 15, 2016, Petitioner was unable to walk or dress himself without assistance.
Throughout his rehabilitation, his progress walking and standing was impeded by his
chronic and pre-existing knee pain.
However, Petitioner made exceptional progress during his in-patient rehabilitation.
By his discharge on November 23, 2016, Petitioner was able to walk, dress himself, and
perform other daily tasks unaided. In contrast, his chronic knee pain continued to be
severe, and he was encouraged to pursue treatment for that condition.
During the subsequent year, Petitioner visited an orthopedist at the Facey Clinic
on several occasions. As expected, the medical records from these visits focus on
Petitioner’s chronic knee pain. They contain entries describing Petitioner as having a
normal gait and coordination.
Petitioner also visited PCPs at the Facey Clinic for follow-up appointments
regarding his GBS and other conditions including his knee pain on four occasions from
November 28, 2016 to May 22, 2017. As indicated in the medical record from his
December 2016 visit, he continued to experience weakness and numbness in his hands
even after his discharge. And although there are notations indicating Petitioner exhibited
a normal gait and coordination, there is little information in these records regarding his
8 Dupuytren’s contractures is “a usual autosomal dominant condition consisting of flexion contracture of a
finger caused by shortening, thickening, and fibrosis of the palmar fascia.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL
DICTIONARY at 410 (32th ed. 2012).
9

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 10 of 12
upper extremities. In general, these medical records do not describe specific, ongoing
symptoms and contain only a cursory description of the complaint and actions taken.
Petitioner’s expert Dr. Spector argues that the continued inclusion of AIDP or GBS
in the list of active problems shows Petitioner suffered residual effects of his GBS until at
least January 2019. Dr. Spector’s Expert Report at 1, 7. She emphasizes that there is no
evidence that Petitioner’s GBS had resolved until that time. Id. at 7. At a minimum, she
maintains that the treatment of GBS as a prioritized diagnosis until late May 2017 is
sufficient to establish six months of sequela. Id. at 6-7.
In response, Respondent insists that the description of GBS as an active problem
alone is not sufficient to prove six-months of residual effects. Rule 4(c) Report at 6-7.
Regarding the report of neurologic weakness in early January 2018, Respondent
emphasizes that the results of the muscular and neurologic examinations performed
during that visit were normal. Id. (referencing Exhibit 2 at 112).
In Kirby, the Federal Circuit explained that its holding in Cucuras was limited to
“the unremarkable proposition that it is not erroneous to give greater weight to
contemporaneous medical records than to later, contradictory testimony” but should not
be interpreted as a finding that “the medical records are presumptively accurate and
complete, . . . that when a person is ill, he reports all of his problems to his doctor, who
then faithfully records everything he is told.” Kirby, 997 F.3d at 1382-83. In that case, the
Circuit determined that the special master’s finding of six-month sequela was not arbitrary
or capricious, despite the lack of recorded symptoms and the Kirby petitioner’s general
statements of feeling fine or having no complaint. Id. at 1383.
None of the medical records from Facey Clinic provide much detail about
Petitioner’s condition. Despite the need to focus on the more immediate issue –
Petitioner’s depression and suicidal thoughts, Dr. Lopes clearly discussed Petitioner’s
GBS and provided instructions regarding treatment on May 22, 2017. And there is no
evidence indicating Petitioner’s GBS had resolved until much later.
In this case, to satisfy the Vaccine Act’s severity requirement Petitioner must show
that he suffered GBS sequelae beyond early May 2017. I find that the record supports a
finding of GBS sequelae at least through late May 2017. Accordingly, I find there is
preponderant evidence to establish Petitioner suffered the residual effects of GBS for
more than six months.
10

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 11 of 12
III. Requirements for Entitlement
Respondent has expressed his belief that “[P]etitioner’s claim meets the Table
criteria for GBS” (Rule 4(c) Report at 6), and I agree with that assessment. See 42 C.F.R.
§ 100.3(a)(XIV)(D); 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15) (Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for
GBS). Thus, Petitioner need not prove causation. Section 11(c)(1)(C). However,
Petitioner must satisfy the other requirements of Section 11(c) regarding the vaccination
received, the duration and severity of petitioner’s injury, and the lack of other award or
settlement. Section 11(c)(A), (B), and (D).
As I have determined in this ruling, the record supports a finding that Petitioner
suffered the residual effects of his GBS for more than six months. See supra Section II.B.;
Section 11(c)(1)(D)(i) (the Vaccine Act’s six-month severity requirement). Additionally, the
vaccine record shows Petitioner received the flu vaccine at the Facey Clinic in Mission
Hills, California. Exhibit 2 at 89; see Section 11(c)(1)(A) (requiring receipt of a covered
vaccine); Section 11(c)(1)(B)(i) (requiring administration within the United States or its
territories). Additionally, there is no evidence that Petitioner has collected a civil award for
his injury. See Section 11(c)(1)(E) (lack of prior civil award). Thus, Petitioner has satisfied
all requirements for entitlement under the Vaccine Act.
IV. Appropriate Amount of Compensation
Although I have determined there is sufficient evidence to show Petitioner suffered
the residual effects of his GBS until at least May 2017, I am not ruling on the overall length
of his sequela. There is evidence showing Petitioner may have experienced some
residual weakness as late as January 2018, and GBS or AIDP was listed as an active
problem until January 2019. However, there are no entries showing that Petitioner was
seen for or received treatment of GBS beyond May 2017. Thus, the lack of GBS-related
entries signifies that, at a minimum, any symptoms Petitioner continued to suffer were not
all that severe. Certainly, symptoms Petitioner may have suffered beyond May 2017 were
not significant enough to prioritize a complaint of GBS over other conditions Petitioner
was experiencing at that time – his knee pain, hernia, and cardiac issues.
Petitioner maintains that he continues to suffer hand weakness related to his GBS,
and he recently visited Dr. Lopes complaining of these symptoms. Exhibit 6 at 1-6. But
this assertion is undercut by the January 2019 entry describing Petitioner’s GBS as
resolved. Exhibit 2 at 13. Additionally, Dr. Lopes observed evidence of arthritis and
deformities related to Dupuytren’s contractures – a condition noted in Petitioner’s medical
records beginning in late 2017. Exhibit 6 at 1; Exhibit 2 at 114 (respectively). These co-
morbidities would naturally affect Petitioner’s ability to use his hands.
11

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 12 of 12
In his first declaration, Petitioner emphasized the difficulties he encountered
performing work-related tasks after his hospitalization for GBS. First Declaration at ¶¶ 29-
33. He attributed these difficulties solely to residual weakness and numbness in his
hands. Id. at ¶¶ 29-32. However, Petitioner also complained of an inability to work due to
his severe osteoarthritis and knee pain prior to vaccination - in the fall of 2016. Exhibit 2
at 306. He continued to suffer severe pain in both knees, described as worse in his right
knee, until at least early 2019 when he underwent a right knee replacement. And, in his
second declaration, Petitioner acknowledged the surgeries he underwent in June 2017
for a hernia repair, in April 2018 for an aortic valve replacement, and in January 2019 for
a right knee replacement. Second Declaration at 19, 21-22.
The fact that the medical records from treatment received in 2018-19 focused on
these co-morbidities and did not include treatment for any GBS symptoms beyond May
2017 is evidence of the mildness of any residual GBS symptoms. And beginning in 2018,
these records included evidence of Dupuytren’s contractures which also affect
Petitioner’s ability to grasp and hold objects. Petitioner should consider all co-morbidities
and the relative mildness of any later GBS symptoms when finalizing his demand.
Although I do not want to downplay the difficulties associated with any GBS illness, the
record as it presently stands suggests that Petitioner’s GBS was less severe, and his
recovery was much quicker than often seen in other Program cases. Any damages award
issued in this case will take the foregoing into account.
V. Conclusion
Based on the entire record in this case, I find that Petitioner has provided
preponderant evidence satisfying all requirements for a Table GBS and the Vaccine
Act’s severity requirement needed for both Table and non-Table claims. Petitioner
is entitled to compensation in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
12

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01674-1
Date issued/filed: 2022-08-08
Pages: 5
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 07/08/2022) regarding 41 DECISION Stipulation/Proffer Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 42 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 5
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1674V
UNPUBLISHED
DAVID GRISWOLD, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: July 8, 2022
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Damages Decision Based on Proffer;
HUMAN SERVICES, Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Guillain-
Barre Syndrome (GBS)
Respondent.
William I. Goldsmith, Goldsmith & Hull, APC, Northridge, CA, for Petitioner.
Tyler King, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On October 29, 2019, David Griswold filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
caused-in-fact by the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on October 31, 2016. Petition
at 1, ¶¶ 2, 20. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On March 30, 2022, a ruling on entitlement was issued, finding Petitioner entitled
to compensation for his GBS. On July 8, 2022, Respondent filed a proffer on award of
compensation (“Proffer”) indicating Petitioner should be awarded $50,000.00,
representing compensation for his pain and suffering. Proffer at 2. In the Proffer,
1 Because this unpublished Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am
required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-
Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (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 section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 42 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 5
Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on
the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.
Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump
sum payment of $50,000.00, representing compensation for his pain and suffering
in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount represents compensation for
all damages that would be available under Section 15(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 42 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
)
DAVID GRISWOLD, )
)
Petitioner, )
) No. 19-1674V
v. ) Chief Special Master Corcoran
) ECF
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )
SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RESPONDENT’S PROFFER ON AWARD OF COMPENSATION
On October 29, 2019, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 et seq. (“Vaccine
Act”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that as a result of the Influenza (“flu”) vaccine and
pneumococcal conjugate (“Prevnar-13”) vaccine, administered on October 31, 2016, he suffered
from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”). Id. On March 22, 2021, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (“respondent”) filed a Rule 4(c) Report recommending compensation be denied.
ECF No. 26. On March 3, 2022, Chief Special Master Corcoran issued a Ruling on Entitlement,
finding that petitioner was entitled to vaccine compensation for his GBS.1 ECF No. 35.
1 Respondent has no objection to the amount of the proffered award of damages set forth herein.
Assuming the Chief 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 Chief Special
Master’s March 3, 2022, entitlement decision.

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 42 Filed 08/08/22 Page 4 of 5
I. Items of Compensation
Based on the evidence of record, respondent proffers that petitioner should be awarded
$50,000.00 in pain and suffering. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a)(4). 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 as described below and requests that the Chief Special Master’s decision and
the Court’s judgment award the following2: a lump sum payment of $50,000.00, in the form of a
check payable to petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN M. BOYNTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. SALVATORE D’ALESSIO
Acting Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
HEATHER L. PEARLMAN
Deputy Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
ALEXIS B. BABCOCK
Assistant Director
Torts Branch, Civil Division
2 Should petitioner die prior to entry of judgment, the parties reserve the right to move the Court
for appropriate relief. In particular, respondent would oppose any award for future lost earnings
and future pain and suffering.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01674-UNJ Document 42 Filed 08/08/22 Page 5 of 5
/s/ TYLER C. KING
Tyler C. King
Trial Attorney
Torts Branch, Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-0146
Tel: (202) 305-0730
Tyler.king@usdoj.gov
Date: July 8, 2022
3