VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01972
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01972
Petitioner: Timothy Elenteny
Filed: 2019-12-30
Decided: 2023-03-10
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-12-28
Condition: Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 187830

AI-assisted case summary:
On December 30, 2019, Timothy Elenteny filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, alleging that he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine administered on December 28, 2018. Mr. Elenteny was 53 years old at the time of vaccination. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, filed a Rule 4(c) report on December 14, 2020, conceding that Mr. Elenteny was entitled to compensation. The respondent's position was that Mr. Elenteny suffered from GBS and satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and its Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI), which afforded him a presumption of vaccine causation. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran on December 16, 2020, finding Mr. Elenteny entitled to compensation. The parties were unable to reach an agreement on damages, leading to a "Motions Day" proceeding on January 27, 2023. Petitioner's counsel was Edward Kraus of the Law Offices of Chicago Kent, and later Kraus Law Group, LLC. Respondent's counsel was Ida Nassar, and later Andrew Henning, both of the U.S. Department of Justice. Mr. Elenteny presented to urgent care on January 10, 2019, thirteen days after his vaccination, with symptoms including severe headache, back pain, and numbness and tingling in his hands, arms, and fingers. These symptoms progressed, and he was admitted to the emergency department on January 17, 2019. After five days of testing, including MRIs, blood cultures, a lumbar puncture, and an EMG/NCS, he was diagnosed with acute motor-axonal GBS. His treatment included gabapentin, opioids, and six IVIG treatments. He was hospitalized for 12 days, followed by 31 days in inpatient rehabilitation. He began outpatient physical therapy on March 7, 2019, and followed up with a neurologist and pain management specialist. By March 26, 2019, he could walk with a walker but had significant foot drop and facial weakness. By May 13, 2019, he could walk without an assistive device. By October 24, 2019, he had largely recovered, reporting return to work but not yet traveling or driving. By December 10, 2020, nearly two years after vaccination, he reported being at "close to 90% of his pre-illness level," having resumed running but still experiencing some lower extremity weakness, facial sensation changes, and pain/numbness in his feet. His primary care physician, Dr. William Dodson III, stated in a January 10, 2023 letter that Mr. Elenteny continued to experience permanent symptoms, including pain in his fingers and toes, facial nerve damage impacting eating and smiling, low stamina, and increased fatigue. Petitioner sought $200,000 for past and future pain and suffering, plus $1,000 per year for life, and $7,830.03 for unreimbursed expenses. Respondent proposed $120,000 for pain and suffering, acknowledging the $7,830.03 in expenses. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded Mr. Elenteny $180,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $7,830.03 for unreimbursed expenses, totaling $187,830.03. The Special Master found that while Mr. Elenteny had a substantial recovery, his initial symptoms, diagnosis, hospitalization, and treatment course were significant. However, he distinguished Mr. Elenteny's case from prior cases with higher awards due to his more rapid recovery and return to work. The Special Master determined that a future component for pain and suffering was not warranted due to insufficient evidence of comparable work limitations, but that his ongoing sequelae were addressed by factoring them into the past pain and suffering award. The final award was a lump sum of $187,830.03.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Timothy Elenteny, age 53, received an influenza vaccine on December 28, 2018. He filed a petition alleging Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) caused by the vaccine. Respondent conceded entitlement, acknowledging that Petitioner met the criteria in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) for GBS following a seasonal flu vaccination, which created a presumption of vaccine causation. The case proceeded to damages. Petitioner alleged GBS with onset 13 days post-vaccination, characterized by severe headache, back pain, numbness, weakness, and difficulty toileting, leading to hospitalization and diagnosis of acute motor-axonal GBS. Treatment included IVIG and pain management. Petitioner sought $200,000 for past/future pain and suffering and $7,830.03 for expenses. Respondent proposed $120,000 for pain and suffering, citing Petitioner's substantial recovery and return to work within two years. Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran awarded $180,000.00 for actual pain and suffering and $7,830.03 for unreimbursed expenses, totaling $187,830.03. The award considered the severity of the initial GBS symptoms, hospitalization, and treatment, balanced against Petitioner's significant recovery and return to work, distinguishing his case from prior, higher awards. No future pain and suffering component was awarded due to insufficient evidence of comparable work limitations, with residual symptoms factored into the past pain and suffering award. Attorneys: Edward Kraus (Petitioner), Andrew Henning (Respondent). Decision Date: March 10, 2023.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01972-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-02-05
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC ORDER/RULING (Originally filed: 12/16/2020) regarding 25 Ruling on Entitlement Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (sw) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 28 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1972V
UNPUBLISHED
TIMOTHY ELENTENY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: December 16, 2020
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;
HUMAN SERVICES, Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Respondent. Administration (SIRVA)
Edward M. Kraus, Law Offices of Chicago Kent, Chicago, IL, for petitioner.
Ida Nassar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.
RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1
On December 30, 2019, Timothy Elenteny 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) as a
result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccination administered to him on December 18, 2018.
Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of
Special Masters.
On December 14, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he
concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c)
Report at 1. Specifically, it is Respondent’s position “that petitioner suffered from GBS,
and that he has satisfied the criteria set forth in the revised Vaccine Injury Table (Table)
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 “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa
(2012).

Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 28 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 2
and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”), which afford him a presumption
of vaccine causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a
seasonal flu vaccination and there is no more likely alternative diagnosis and no apparent
alternative cause.” Id. at 7.
In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to compensation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
2

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 2: USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01972-1
Date issued/filed: 2023-03-10
Pages: 9
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 02/01/2023) regarding 55 DECISION of Special Master Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (nh) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 9
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 19-1972V
UNPUBLISHED
TIMOTHY ELENTENY, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: February 1, 2023
v.
Special Processing Unit (SPU);
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND Decision Awarding Damages; Pain
HUMAN SERVICES, and Suffering; Influenza (Flu)
Vaccine; Guillain-Barré Syndrome
Respondent. (GBS)
Edward Kraus, Kraus Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner.
Andrew Henning, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1
On December 30, 2019, Timothy Elenteny 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 from Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”)
as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on December 28, 2018. Petition at
1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special
Masters, and although Respondent conceded entitlement, the parties were not able to
settle damages.
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-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 9
After hearing argument from the parties at a “Motions Day” proceeding, I find that
Petitioner is entitled to an award of damages in the amount of $187,830.03, representing
$180,000.00 for actual pain and suffering, and $7,830.03 in unreimbursed out-of-
pocket expenses.
I. Relevant Procedural History
This case was initiated on December 30, 2019. On December 14, 2020
(approximately one year later), Respondent filed a Rule 4(c) Report conceding
entitlement. ECF No. 23. A Ruling on Entitlement was issued on December 16, 2020.
ECF No. 25. After attempting to resolve the issue of damages for another year, the parties
informed me in March 2022 that they were unable to reach an agreement as to the amount
of pain and suffering. ECF No. 41. Petitioner filed a Damages Brief (“Br.”) on May 5, 2022.
ECF No. 43. Respondent filed a responsive Damages Brief (“Resp.”) on August 11, 2022.
ECF No. 50. I proposed that the parties be given the opportunity to argue their positions
at a “Motions Day” hearing, at which time I would decide the disputed issues. ECF No.
52. That hearing was held on January 27, 2023, and the case is now ripe for resolution.
Petitioner argues that an award of $200,000 in past and future pain and suffering,
plus future pain and suffering of $1,000 per year for the remainder of Mr. Elenteny’s life
expectancy, is appropriate. Br. at 2. Petitioner justifies his request by highlighting the
severity of his GBS symptoms, particularly early in his course of treatment, the duration,
and the permanency of his remaining sequelae, including ongoing neuropathic pain, facial
weakness, and significant general weakness that has had a profound negative impact on
his personal and professional life. Br. at 17. In addition, Petitioner requests $7,830.03 as
reimbursement for unreimbursable out-of-pocket expenses. Id. at 19.
Respondent, by contrast, proposes that an award of $120,000 in pain and suffering
is appropriate due, primarily, to Petitioner’s substantial recovery by approximately one
year after his vaccination. Resp. at 16. Respondent notes that while Petitioner’s early
treatment course was significant, he “largely recovered – evidenced by his returning to
work, traveling, running, and hiking.” Id. a 18. Respondent does not dispute Petitioner’s
out-of-pocket expenses of $7,830.03. Id. at 20.
II. Relevant Medical History
Petitioner was 53 years old when he received influenza and Tdap vaccines on
December 28, 2018 in Boulder, CO. Ex. 3 at 1. Prior to his vaccination, Mr. Elenteny
owned and operated a wine distribution business, traveled frequently, and enjoyed
running, basketball, and tennis. Ex. 8 at ¶2; Ex. 16 at ¶2; Ex. 17 at ¶2.
2

Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 9
On January 10, 2019 (13 days after his vaccination), Petitioner presented to urgent
care with a severe headache, back pain, and numbness and tingling in his hands, arms,
and fingers. Ex. 11 at 7-9. He followed up with a new primary care doctor five days later
with continued complaints of headache, back pain, numbness in his fingertips and legs,
a pins and needles sensation in his feet, and spots in his vision. Ex. 12 at 8-10. A lumbar
MRI was ordered. Id. When he returned two days later reporting back pain radiating down
both legs, weakness in his legs, and difficulty toileting, he was referred to the ER for
further evaluation. Id. at 40.
Petitioner presented to the emergency department on January 17, 2019. Ex. 4 at
8-11. He was admitted with concerns of infection, spinal compression, and other
differential diagnoses. Id. It took five days of testing, including several MRI’s, blood
cultures, a lumbar puncture and an EMG/NCS to confirm a diagnosis of acute motor-
axonal GBS. Id. at 35, 57, 75, 116-118, 1323. Petitioner’s pain required treatment with
gabapentin and opioids. Id. He received six IVIG treatments. Id. On January 29, 2019,
after 12 days in the hospital, Petitioner was discharged to inpatient rehab, where he
stayed for 31 additional days. Ex. 4 at 2-6; Ex. 5 at 2-8.
Petitioner began outpatient physical therapy on March 7, 2019. He continued to
follow up with a neurologist and a pain management specialist through 2019. On March
26, 2019, Petitioner was able to walk with a walker, but had significant foot drop, and was
unable to close his eyes due to significant facial weakness. Ex. 6 at 32.
By May 13, 2019, Petitioner could walk without an assistive device and had been
able to hike with his wife, although he needed assistance walking downhill. Ex. 4 at 2023.
By October 24, 2019, Petitioner was much improved, including almost fully resolved facial
weakness, but continued to have numbness and tingling and was areflexic. Ex. 7 at 7. He
reported that he had returned to work, but not yet traveling or driving. Id.
Petitioner states that he was unable to attend in-person medical appointments for
much of 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but continued his home exercise program.
Ex. 19 at ¶5. He returned to his neurologist on December 10, 2020, just under two years
after his vaccination, where he reported that he had returned to “close to 90% of his pre-
illness level.” Ex. 15 at 17. He continued to have some lower extremity weakness,
sometimes experienced changes in sensation in his face, and had pain, numbness, and
changed sensation in his feet. Id. He reported that he had been able to start running again
and that he was not taking any prescription medications. Id.
3

Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 9
There are no treatment records specifically addressing Petitioner’s GBS after
December 2020.3 Mr. Elenteny’s primary care physician, Dr. William Dodson, III,
submitted a letter, dated January 10, 2023, in which he stated that although Petitioner
“has made a fairly good recovery overall, he continues to experience certain symptoms
which are likely permanent at this point.” Ex. 21 at 1. Dr. Dodson’s letter describes
ongoing pain in his fingers and toes, facial nerve damage that impacts eating and smiling,
low stamina, and increased fatigue. Id. Petitioner, his wife, and his mother submitted
affidavits in which they describe similar ongoing sequelae.4 See Ex. 16, 17, 19.
III. Legal Standard
Compensation awarded pursuant to the Vaccine Act shall include “[f]or actual and
projected pain and suffering and emotional distress from the vaccine-related injury, an
award not to exceed $250,000.” Section 15(a)(4). Additionally, a petitioner may recover
“actual unreimbursable expenses incurred before the date of judgment awarding such
expenses which (i) resulted from the vaccine-related injury for which the petitioner seeks
compensation, (ii) were incurred by or on behalf of the person who suffered such injury,
and (iii) were for diagnosis, medical or other remedial care, rehabilitation . . . determined
to be reasonably necessary.” Section 15(a)(1)(B). The petitioner bears the burden of proof
with respect to each element of compensation requested. Brewer v. Sec’y of Health &
Hum. Servs., No. 93-0092V, 1996 WL 147722, at *22-23 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 18,
1996).
There is no mathematic formula for assigning a monetary value to a person’s pain
and suffering and emotional distress. I.D. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 04-1593V,
2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 14, 2013) (“[a]wards for emotional
distress are inherently subjective and cannot be determined by using a mathematical
formula”); Stansfield v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 93-0172V, 1996 WL 300594,
at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. May 22, 1996) (“the assessment of pain and suffering is
inherently a subjective evaluation”). Factors to be considered when determining an award
for pain and suffering include: 1) awareness of the injury; 2) severity of the injury; and 3)
duration of the suffering. I.D., 2013 WL 2448125, at *9 (citing McAllister v. Sec’y of Health
& Hum. Servs., No 91-1037V, 1993 WL 777030, at *3 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26,
1993), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 70 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
3 Petitioner argues that a broken foot he suffered during a fall while hiking in June 2021 resulted from his
ongoing GBS symptoms. Ex. 18 at 7, 18. The records, however, do not specifically reflect GBS symptoms
as causing the fall.
4 Petitioner described ongoing pain that has taken a toll on his mental health, as well as ongoing issues
with facial expressions, eating, drinking, and talking, and chronically reduced energy. Ex. 19 at ¶9-11.
Petitioner’s wife described how his illness and sequelae prevented him from participating in physical
activities with their teenaged sons, impacting the relationships. Ex. 16 at ¶5. Petitioner’s mother, who is a
nurse, noted that he continued to have impairments in balance, stamina, and agility, and “markedly reduced
energy” levels. Ex. 17 at ¶4-5.
4

Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 9
I may also consider prior pain and suffering awards to aid my resolution of the
appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in this case. See, e.g., Doe
34 v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 87 Fed. Cl. 758, 768 (2009) (finding that “there is
nothing improper in the chief special master’s decision to refer to damages for pain and
suffering awarded in other cases as an aid in determining the proper amount of damages
in this case.”). And, of course, I may rely on my own experience (along with that of my
predecessor Chief Special Masters) adjudicating similar claims.5 Hodges v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 9 F.3d 958, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that Congress
contemplated that the special masters would use their accumulated expertise in the field
of vaccine injuries to judge the merits of individual claims).
Although pain and suffering in the past was often determined based on a
continuum, as Respondent argues, that practice was cast into doubt by the Court several
years ago. Graves v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 109 Fed. Cl. 579 (Fed. Cl. 2013). In
Graves, the Court maintained that to do so resulted in “the forcing of all suffering awards
into a global comparative scale in which the individual petitioner’s suffering is compared
to the most extreme cases and reduced accordingly.” Id. at 589-90. Instead, Graves
assessed pain and suffering by looking to the record evidence, prior pain and suffering
awards within the Vaccine Program, and a survey of similar injury claims outside of the
Vaccine Program. Id. at 593-95. Under this alternative approach, the statutory cap merely
cuts off higher pain and suffering awards – it does not shrink the magnitude of all possible
awards as falling within a spectrum that ends at the cap. Although Graves is not
controlling of the outcome in this case, it offers a reasoned understanding of the issues
involved in pain and suffering calculations.
IV. Appropriate Compensation for Petitioner’s Pain and Suffering
In this case, awareness of the injury is not disputed. The record reflects that at all
times Petitioner was a competent adult with no impairments that would impact his
awareness of his GBS. Therefore, my analysis focuses primarily on the severity and
duration of Petitioner’s injury.
When performing this analysis, I review the record as a whole including the medical
records and affidavits filed, all assertions made by the parties in written documents, and
the parties’ arguments during the hearing. Mr. Elenteny’s medical records and affidavits
provide descriptions of his treatment course and the pain and suffering he experienced
5 From July 2014 until September 2015, the SPU was overseen by former Chief Special Master Vowell.
For the next four years, until September 30, 2019, all SPU cases, including the majority of SIRVA claims,
were assigned to former Chief Special Master Dorsey, now Special Master Dorsey. In early October 2019,
the majority of SPU cases were reassigned to me as the current Chief Special Master.
5

Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 9
during his illness. In his brief, Petitioner primarily relied on Hood v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., No. 16-1042V, 2021 WL 5755324 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Oct. 19, 2021) to
support the past/actual component of his demand.6 The Hood petitioner spent 16 days
inpatient, received two courses of IVIG treatment, had five months of outpatient rehab,
and had ongoing sequelae, including fatigue and reduced stamina, that interfered with his
employment and parenting. Id. at 2-4. Petitioner argues that his course was at least as
severe as in Hood, but with a longer inpatient stay and more severe pain. Br. at 15.
Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s rigorous treatment course, but disputes the
duration of treatment and the severity of any ongoing sequelae. Resp. at 16-17. He
highlights medical records from October 2019 (ten months after vaccination), where
Petitioner reported having returned to work, including travel,7 and from December 2020
(two years after vaccination) where Petitioner reported 90% recovery. Id. at 16-18.
Respondent argues that these facts justify a reduction to $120,000 from the higher
amounts in other relevant vaccine cases. Id. at 17-18.
After reviewing the record in this case and considering the parties’ written and oral
arguments, I find that Petitioner suffered a moderate to serious GBS injury. I have noted
in prior decisions that GBS constitutes a particularly alarming kind of vaccine injury – and
that as a result, the pain and suffering award allowed should be a bit higher than average
to account for the frightening nature of the condition. Gross v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., No. 19-0835V, 2021 WL 2666685 at *5 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 11, 2021). At
the same time, however, the considerations that always impact how a pain and suffering
award is calculated – level of pain, length of hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation,
degree and number of procedures for treatment, duration of treatment, and overall
recovery – impact the final figure to be awarded.
During his treatment, particularly in the period soon after the onset of symptoms,
Petitioner suffered severe pain (requiring several heavy pain medications), underwent
several invasive tests while seeking a diagnosis, required a fairly long inpatient stay, and
experienced a slow response to treatment, with significant improvement beginning
approximately five months after vaccination. Ex.4 at 8-11, 35-57, 75, 116-118, 2023; Ex.
12 at 8-10. That said, Petitioner’s recovery was good – with Petitioner largely able to
return to his employment and recreational activities – within two years of vaccination. Ex.
15 at 17.
6 Petitioner also cited McRay v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-0277V, 2021 WL 4618549 (Fed.
Cl. Spec. Mstr. Aug. 31, 2021) and Fedewa v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-1808V, 2020 WL
1915138 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 26, 2020), both of which involved petitioners who were awarded
$180,000 in past pain and suffering.
7 The record from October 24, 2019 states both that Petitioner has resumed traveling and had not resumed
traveling and is therefore not clear on the subject. Ex. 7 at 7.
6

Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 7 of 9
I credit Respondent’s arguments for why an award of $200,000 in past pain and
suffering, as was awarded in Hood, is somewhat too high in this case. Although Mr.
Elenteny experienced a similar course of treatment at the beginning, Mr. Hood’s ongoing
symptoms required a second round of IVIG treatment five months after his vaccination.
Hood, 2021 WL 5755324 at *3. It took Mr. Hood approximately eight months to progress
from a wheeled walker to walking with a cane, while Mr. Elenteny reported by May 13,
2019 (less than six months after his vaccination) that he did not need any assistive
devices to walk. Id.; Ex. 4 at 2023. Further, Mr. Hood was unable to return to his prior
profession due to his long-term fatigue and ongoing numbness in his feet, which rendered
him unable to stand for longer than 15-30 minutes at a time, even six years after his
vaccination. Hood, 2021 WL 5755324 at 5-6. These differences justify a lower award in
this case.
On the other hand, I find that Respondent’s recommendation of $120,000 is far too
modest. Respondent’s proposed award fails to properly recognize Mr. Elenteny’s
experience with his initial symptoms, diagnosis, hospitalization, and treatment course for
his GBS, and the significant impact on his life. It is also unsupported by comparable
decisions, and relies primarily on the argument that Mr. Elenteny’s course of treatment
was of a shorter duration than petitioners in similar cases and therefore justifies a
significantly lower award.8 Respondent, however, did not provide any real explanation for
how he quantified the amount of the decrease in his proposed award from the prior
decisions. While Respondent made reasonable arguments for distinguishing Petitioner’s
reliance on Hood, he did not cite any cases justifying the number he proposed.9
The appropriateness of a future component is also disputed. Mr. Elenteny’s
substantial recovery does not mean that Petitioner has fully recovered from his GBS and
has no ongoing sequelae. It is common for petitioners to experience ongoing symptoms
of GBS, such as numbness and fatigue, even with a good recovery. Petitioner’s primary
care physician, as well as the filed affidavits, describe how Petitioner has ongoing
problems with numbness and pain, facial nerve damage, and reduced energy. See Ex.
16, 17, 19, 21. Petitioner argues that his ongoing sequelae, which he argues are similar
8 To this end, Respondent discussed Dillenbeck v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 17-0428V, 2019
WL 4072069 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 29, 2019) and Johnson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-
1356V, 2018 WL 5024012 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. July 20, 2018), which involved awards of $170,000 to
$180,000 in past pain and suffering.
9 In fact, a review of cases featuring awards in the range proposed by Respondent further illustrates why
his proposed figure is too low. See e.g., Castellanos v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-1710V,
2022 WL 1482497 (Fed. Cl. Spec. Mstr. Mar. 30, 2022) (award of $125,000 in pain and suffering for a GBS
course including 9 days hospitalization, 5 IVIG treatments, no pain reported in the hospital, one month of
inpatient rehabilitation, substantial recovery by five months after vaccination, and no significant loss of
employment, psychological distress, or impact on quality of life).
7

Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 8 of 9
to the ongoing limitations in Hood, justify the same future pain and suffering award as
awarded in that case. Br. at 18.
The Hood case, however, is once again distinguishable from Mr. Elenteny’s
experience. After his GBS injury, Mr. Hood was unable to return to his job as a butcher
due to his physical limitations. Hood, 2021 WL 5755324 at *9. In that case, there was
substantial evidence of the permanent and substantial impact of Mr. Hood’s injury on his
livelihood, including testimony by two life care planners and a vocational expert. Id. at 5-
6. The same is not so evident here. Although certainly Mr. Elenteny continues to
experience sequelae and has not fully returned to his pre-GBS baseline, he has not
provided sufficient evidence to support his claim for future pain and suffering (such as
evidence showing a comparable degree of work limitations due to GBS sequelae).
Although the fact that Petitioner continues to treat (approximately once a year) for his
ongoing symptoms is not in itself sufficient to justify the future award he seeks, his residual
symptoms do appear to be lingering long-term. These ongoing sequelae are most
appropriately addressed by factoring Petitioner’s future pain and suffering into the
magnitude of the past component.
Accordingly, balancing the severity of Petitioner’s GBS injury and the impact on
him personally against his substantial recovery, and considering the arguments presented
by both parties, a review of the cited cases, and based on the record as a whole, I find
that $180,000.00 in total compensation for actual/past pain and suffering is reasonable
and appropriate in this case, with no future component awarded.
V. Award for Past Unreimbursed Expenses
Petitioner requests $7,830.03 in past unreimbursable expenses. Br. at 19.
Respondent does not dispute this sum, and therefore Petitioner is awarded it without
adjustment. Resp. at 20.
Conclusion
For all of the above reasons, the I award Petitioner a lump sum payment of
$187,830.03, (representing $180,000.00 for Petitioner’s actual pain and suffering and
$7,830.03 for unreimbursable medical expenses) in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner Timothy Elenteny. This amount represents compensation for all damages
that would be available under Section 15(a) of the Vaccine Act. Id.
8

Case 1:19-vv-01972-UNJ Document 59 Filed 03/10/23 Page 9 of 9
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Decision.10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
10 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.
9