VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01190
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01190
Petitioner: Judith Adams
Filed: 2021-11-02
Decided: 2021-12-03
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-10-02
Condition: Guillain-Barré syndrome
Outcome: compensated
Award amount USD: 175000

AI-assisted case summary:
Judith Adams filed a petition on November 2, 2021, seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. She alleged that she suffered from Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) as a result of an influenza vaccine she received on October 2, 2018. The respondent, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denied that the flu vaccine caused petitioner's alleged GBS or any other injury, and denied that her current condition was a sequelae of a vaccine-related injury. Despite maintaining these positions, both parties agreed to settle the case through a joint stipulation filed on November 2, 2021. Special Master Katherine E. Oler reviewed the file and found the stipulation to be reasonable, adopting it as the decision. The stipulation awarded Judith Adams a lump sum of $175,000.00, payable by check to the petitioner. This award represents compensation for all damages available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a). The decision was signed by Special Master Oler on December 3, 2021. The public decision does not describe the onset of symptoms, specific clinical details, medical tests, treatments, or expert witnesses. Petitioner was represented by Simina Vourlis of the Law Offices of Simina Vourlis, and Respondent was represented by Jeremy Fugate of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Theory of causation field:
Petitioner Judith Adams alleged a Table injury of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) following an influenza vaccination on October 2, 2018. Respondent denied causation. The parties entered into a joint stipulation to settle the case, which was adopted by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. The stipulation awarded a lump sum of $175,000.00. The public text indicates the theory of causation falls under the "Table" category of injuries recognized by the program, but does not provide further details on the specific mechanism or expert testimony. Petitioner's counsel was Simina Vourlis, and Respondent's counsel was Jeremy Fugate. The decision was entered on December 3, 2021.

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-vv-01190-0
Date issued/filed: 2021-12-03
Pages: 7
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 11/2/2021) regarding 35 DECISION of Special Master - Stipulation. Signed by Special Master Katherine E. Oler. (sl) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:20-vv-01190-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 7
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 20-1190V
(not to be published)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
JUDITH ADAMS,
*
* Filed: November 2, 2021
Petitioner, *
*
*
v. * Decision by Stipulation; Damages;
* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Guillain-Barré
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * syndrome.
HUMAN SERVICES, *
*
*
Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Simina Vourlis, Law Offices of Simina Vourlis, Columbus, OH, for Petitioner
Jeremy Fugate, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION1
On September 14, 2020, Judith Adams (“Petitioner”) filed a petition, seeking compensation
under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Vaccine Program”).2 Pet., ECF
No. 1. Petitioner alleges she suffered from a Table injury of Guillain-Barré syndrome as a result
of the influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on October 2, 2018. See Stipulation ¶ 2, 4, dated
November 2, 2021 (ECF No. 34); see also Petition.
Respondent denies “that the flu 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-01190-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 7
injury; and denies that her 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 November 2, 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 $175,000.00 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-01190-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01190-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01190-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01190-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 7

Case 1:20-vv-01190-UNJ Document 40 Filed 12/03/21 Page 7 of 7