VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01004
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01004
Petitioner: Edward Espinosa
Filed: 2020-08-12
Decided: 2021-12-21
Vaccine: Tdap
Vaccination date: 2018-06-19
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 83291

AI-assisted case summary:
On August 12, 2020, Edward Espinosa filed a Vaccine Program petition after receiving a tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine on June 19, 2018. He alleged that the Tdap vaccination caused Guillain-Barre Syndrome.

The public decision was entered on a joint stipulation and contains limited clinical detail. It identifies the vaccine, date, and alleged GBS, but it does not describe onset, neurologic testing, treatment, or expert analysis. Respondent denied that the Tdap vaccine caused Espinosa's alleged GBS or any other injury, and denied that his current condition was a sequela of a vaccine-related injury. The stipulation was therefore a negotiated resolution rather than a concession of causation.

The parties filed a stipulation on December 21, 2021. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the file, found the stipulation reasonable, and adopted it that day. Espinosa was awarded a lump sum of $83,291.00, payable to him, representing all damages available under section 15(a). The clerk was directed to enter judgment under the stipulation. Espinosa was represented by Jessica Olins of Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A.

Theory of causation field:
Tdap vaccine (June 19, 2018) alleged to cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome. COMPENSATED by stipulation. Respondent denied that Tdap caused alleged GBS or any other injury and denied current condition as vaccine-related sequela; public stipulation decision provides limited clinical facts. Special Master Katherine E. Oler adopted the stipulation on December 21, 2021. Award: $83,291.00 lump sum payable to Edward Espinosa for all section 15(a) damages. Attorney: Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A., Seattle, WA.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01004-0
Date issued/filed: 2022-02-18
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 12/21/2021) regarding 33 DECISION of Special Master - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1004V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
EDWARD ESPINOSA,
*
* Filed: December 21, 2021
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * (“Tdap”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barré
HUMAN SERVICES, * syndrome.
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jessica Olins, Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
Jeremy Fugate, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On August 12, 2020, Edward Espinosa (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine
Program”).2 Pet., ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges he suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome as a
result of the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccination he received on June 19,
2018. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated December 21, 2021 (ECF No. 32); see also Petition.
Respondent denies “that the Tdap vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged GBS, or any other
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 1:20-vv-01004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 7
injury; and denies that his current condition is a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury.” See
Stipulation ¶ 6. Nonetheless, both parties, while maintaining their above-stated positions, agreed
in a stipulation filed December 21, 2021 that the issues before them can be settled and that a
decision should be entered awarding Petitioner compensation.
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 $83,291.00 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 1:20-vv-01004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/18/22 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/18/22 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01004-UNJ Document 40 Filed 02/18/22 Page 7 of 7